Mesoxylon and an Allied Genus. 
reasonable doubt that the function of such highly modified shoots was 
connected with reproduction ; as a matter of fact there are the closest 
analogies with various well-known Cordaitean fructifications, and Mesoxylon , 
as we know, was a near ally of Cordaites. Grand’Eury says of Cordaianthus , 
‘ Les bourgeons floraux plus ou moins nombreux ont une disposition 
generalement distique’ ( 1 . c., p. 237). Our axillary shoot of course corre- 
sponds to the main axis of the inflorescence, which Grand’Eury describes 
as ‘ fleshy and the distichously arranged branches to the floral buds. 
Some of Grand’Eury’s figures of Cordaianthus agree remarkably well 
with our Specimens, and might almost serve as restorations of them. 
Attention may be especially directed to Cordaianthus baccifer (l.c., 
PI. XXVI, Figs. 10, 12, 13) and 
to the illustrations in PI. XXV, 
which show the inflorescences as 
borne on the stem ; one of them 
is reproduced in our Text-fig. 3. 
The ‘ naked peduncle ’ (e. g. C. 
glomeratus, l.c., p. 230; cf. C. 
gemmifer , PI. XXVI, Fig. 5) is 
clearly comparable to the leafless 
main axis of our axillary shoot. 
Grand’Eury lays stress on the 
absence of bracts, flowers, and 
leaves on the peduncle (1. c., 
p. 228). 
The dimensions of the 
smaller specimens of Cordaian- 
thus are quite comparable to 
those of our specimens. It may 
be further pointed out that in 
Grand’Eury’s figures showing the 
inflorescences in situ (l.c., PI. XXV) 
their insertion lies some little distance above the subtending leaf. This agrees 
with the position of our axillary shoots (Scott, 1918 , p. 448). In position, 
form, size, and general morphology our fertile shoots thus agree with the 
inflorescences known as Cordaianthus. One point of difference may be 
mentioned. Grand’Eury (l.c., p. 228) describes the floral buds as borne in 
the axils of bracts, which are shown in many of his figures.though they are 
sometimes abortive. There appears to be no subtending bract to the bud 
or branch in our specimens, for the distal bundle, which might have been 
interpreted as the trace of such a bract, springs from the branch-stele, and 
not from the stele of the main shoot (see PI. Ill, Fig. 19, and Text-fig. 2). 
It would thus seem to have supplied a prophyll of the branch, rather than 
Text- fig. 3. Part of a branch of Cordaites 
laevis (restored). It bears several leaves and two 
inflorescences, the upper ?, the lower S, with distichous 
floral buds. From Grand’Eury. About natural size. 
