24 
Gen. Phytoeithus. Fam. Plantitje. 
c. S. trunci fbliis destituti. 
d. S. trunco siinplici. 
e. S, complanato. 
Obs. This petrifaction presents great diversity of form, which does not, however, appear to 
arise from any dissimilarity of structure in the original, if wc except that, which the various 
shapes of the tubercles produce. The difference noticed in the specimens, a. b. c. &c. is merely 
accidental, occasioned by the more or less perfect state in which the fossil occurs. 
Since this work went to the press, we have received a copy of Mr. Parkinson’s “ Organic Re- 
mains,” in which we find an excellent figure and description of the petrifaction now under inves- 
tigation. In the first instance, Mr. Parkinson considers this Reliquium as we have done — that is, 
as the remains of the stem of a plant, which has not, as yet, been discovered ; but is inclined 
afterwards to alter this ppinion, on inspecting specimens of a Phytolithus, conceived to be anala- 
gous to the present fossil, though evidently a petrified strobile or cone, from some unknown species 
of Piiius. 
That the specimen figured by Mr. Parkinson, plate ix. f. 1. is really the petrifaction of a cone 
there can be no doubt — ^>ve have frequently met with the same fossil, and, if we are not mistaken, 
once examined the very specimen, from which the figure above referred to was taken ; but our 
observations have by no means led us to conclude, with this Gentleman, that Phyt. verrucosus 
also originates from a strohilus. Its size * alone strongly makes against this idea; and we have 
to add, that, among the numberless specimens examined by us, not the smallest vestige has 
been discovered, of that connection between the surface and the central imbricated part, noticed 
by Mr. Parkinspn in his described stroHlus: although many of these specimens of verrucosus were 
in ironstone ; in whieh state, the structure in question would most probably have been preserved, 
had it existed in the original. Woodward, w'ho had, as Mr. Parkinson justly observes, from the 
multitude of his specimens, the best opportunity for judging correctly of the nature of this curious 
fossil, was decidedly of opinion, that its original was the trunk or stem of some unknown plant: 
and that the imbricated body, frequently discovered running Icngthw^ays through the petrifaction, 
was no other than the commencement of a branch. — His w'ords in describing one of his specimens 
are, “ Another from Lanellhy-— This has running lengthways of it a pretty deep Creest” fsukusj, 
“ and, in it, a body that at one end is extant, and appears in the Creest ; but at the other is 
immers’d in the stone so as there to resemble what I have mentioned in h, 40. as a pith : and 
’tis probably the same with that. This appears as a branch arising out of the main trunk: and 
“ indeed is no other.” Sec. — Vide Cat. Engl. Foss. T. 11. p. 60. h. 41. — ^This subramose struc- 
ture, clearly pointing out the nature of the prototype, we had ourselves ascertained in several 
specimens, examined as they lay in their native beds, long before wc had had an opportunity of 
• Woodward notices specimens five or six feet long. Vide Cat. Engl. Fossils. V. I. p. 104. q- f • 
V'. II. p. 5P. h. 34. One of these was found near lligham, (Derbyshire) from whence we have 
also received very large specimens. 
