HICK : OALAMOSTAOHYS BINNEYANA. 
291 
affinities with the Lycopodiacew. On the other hand the demonstra- 
tion of the existence of primary vascular handles with carina! canals, 
affords positive proof of the closeness of its relationship with the 
Calamitoc. Hence taking the whole of the evidence as it stands, 
both old and new, it seems to me to fully establish the conclusion at 
which Carruthers arrived in 1867, viz., that Calamostachys Binneyana 
is the fruit of some form of Calamites. 
Now the genus Calamites is not very well defined, and under it 
have been included several series of fossils which are distinguished 
by important differences. This is especially the case with those 
which are merely the casts of the pith cavity, and which Weiss has 
provisionally distributed into four groups. But there are differences 
also in the specimens that show structure, although a critical study 
of these differences can scarcely be said, as yet, to have been made. 
Hence the question naturally arises whether it is possible to bring 
Calamostachys Binneyana into relationship with any of the Cala- 
mitean steins whose structure is to some extent already known. In 
reply it may be admitted that this cannot be done with certainty 
at present, but that there is some probability that it is the spike of a 
Calamites of the type of Arthropitys. The evidence which points to 
this conclusions, if it does not actually prove it, is as follows. : — 
Up to the present time only two types of Calamites with struc- 
ture appear to be known, viz., those included in Goppert's genera 
Arthropitys and Calamodendron. The geological range of the two 
types is different,* the latter being found in the Upper Coal 
Measures and the Rothliegende, and the former in the Lower Coal 
Measures. Now all the Calamites with structure hitherto found in 
Yorkshire and Lancashire are from the Lower Coal Measures and are 
of the Arthropitys type. In the same beds with them, and often in 
the same nodules, we find Calamostachys Binneyana, so that the two 
fossils are intimately associated together. Of itself, this fact is not 
perhaps of great weight as an argument that both belong to the same 
plant, but on the other hand it can hardly be maintained that it is 
of no value at all. 
In the next plaee there are certain anatomical structures met 
* Solms-Laubach : Fossil Botany, p. 299. 
