385 
Genus— BBACRTPHYLLUM, Brongniart, 1828. 
(Prod. Hist. Vdg. Foss., p. 109.) 
BEAcnTPnxiLUM CEASSTTM, Ten. Woods, PI. 18, fig. 2. 
Brachyphylhmi craBsum (aut. \'ar. B. mamilarc?) Ten. Woods, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, 1883, vii., 
Pt. 4, p. 660. 
„ austvalCt var. crassuBiy Ten, Woods, Xoc. cit.j 1883, vi'ii., Pt. 1, p. lo9, t. 5. 
Sp. Char. Plaut robust, thick ; stem and branches repeatedly dichotomous ; 
leaves thick and fleshy, densely crowded, homodromous, short, broad, obtuse, conspicu- 
ously keeled, erect, closely imbricate, but slightly spreading ; branches and branchlets 
very little narrower than the parent stem, and of equal width to the summit ; a,!! 
portions of the plant curved, three leaves visible in each spiral, and about three rows in 
one centimetre. Length of leaves, from two to three millimetres ; breadth, from five 
to sis ; diameter of cauline stem at widest part, ten millimetres ; of branchlets, eight 
millimetres ; length of shortest, eighteen millimetres. (Tew. Woods.) 
Ohs. This is a very interesting plant, as the leaf-scars resemble those of 
Lepidodendron. . , • -i i ij 
Mr. AVoods seems to have been in much doubt as to the name his tossil should 
bear. At p. 54 of the Memoir cited* in the list of Queensland .Jurassic plants, he 
mentions Brachyphyllnm mamillare, but on p. 62 ho gives B. mmnillare, var. crassum, 
whilst to the description on p. 159 is appended the name B. amtrale, var. crassum. 
By what name, therefore, is this plant to be known? AVith the view of avoiding this 
confusion I have adopted his varietal name as the specific one, particularly as I believe 
the plant in question to bo distinct from Feistmantel’s species. This will also avoid any 
confusion with Mamillaria Besnogersii, which appears to have been dragged in without 
any special object. If Mr. A¥oods intended to convey the idea that his B. crassum is 
identical with the latter, why did he not adopt it as the specific name for the Queensland 
plant at once ? From the respective descriptions and fi gures of F eistmantel and AYoods, it 
seems to mo that their species are distinct. In B. australe the leaves are said to be 
flattened and sub-keeled fin B. crassum they are described as conspicuously keeled 
Those points are borne out by the Author’s figures. In fact, the short, broad, and 
obtuse leaves on the branchlets of B. crassum correspond much more closely Avith the 
somewhat similar leaves on the amentum of B. australe than they do with the rhomboid 
oblong leaves on the branchlets of the latter. 
B. crassum' is said by its describer to closely resemble the European B. mami- 
lare, Brong., but to differ from the latter, and all other known forms, in the 
thickness and shape of the leaves, and the continuous branching without diminution of 
diameter. The leaves are covered with a fine granulation, and have slightly raised 
margins. Mr. AVoods adds that the sharp and raised keel is not visible on all leaves. 
A specimen before mo, from Clifton Colliery, has some of the leaves keeled, others 
not, but all with a more or less thickened margin. 
On examining the figured type I find the characters laid down by Mr. AVoods as 
quite correct, and it is clear that where the vertical ridges have disappeared the plant 
has been subjected to much pressure. The main branch of this specimen is six inches 
long, and eleven millimetres wide, whilst the scales are from three to five millimetres in 
transverse measurement. When really wcU preserved the leaf-scales have the form of our 
Bl. 18, fig. 3, terminating upwards in a short mucro. This makes me hesitate the less in 
referring this specimen also to B. crassum. In the example from the Walloon Mine, 
2 A 
Author’s separate copy. 
