Hickling . — The Anatomy of Palaeostachya vera. 383 
close relationship of Calamostachys and Palaeostachya would not be seriously 
diminished. 
Lignier 1 has already ably advocated the view that the ‘ fertile whorl ’ 
of Calamostachys is merely a displaced series of fertile segments of the 
sterile leaves, and has pointed out the significance of the course of the 
traces of the appendages in these fructifications. In the same paper he 
interprets the tetrasporangiate sporangiophore as the result of the fusion 
of adjacent sporangiophores in pairs, so that the compound organ now lies 
superposed to the interval between the pair of leaves to which its com- 
ponent sporangiophores belonged, while the total number of sporangio- 
phores is reduced to half that of the bracts. This ingenious interpretation 
affords an admirable explanation of the structure of Calamodendrostachys 
and of some specimens of Calamostachys. In the numerous specimens of 
the latter genus in which the sporangiophores are more than half as 
numerous as the bracts, it will be more difficult to apply, while in 
Palaeostachya vera it cannot be applied. It does not appear to me that 
the relationship between the number of bracts and of sporangiophores in 
Calamitean cones is as definite as would appear to be commonly supposed. 
The only rule which seems to hold generally is that the sporangiophores 
are always equal in number to the primary bundles of the axis, or practically 
so, while the bracts are equally or more numerous. Thus, while agreeing 
with Lignier as to the probable origin of the sporangiophore and the mode 
of multiplication of the appendages, I think it must be allowed that the 
sporangiophores and bracts, having become separated, might be multiplied 
independently and sometimes irregularly. I should therefore regard it as 
more probable that the double number of bracts as compared with sporan- 
giophores in Calamostachys is due to the bracts having undergone more 
division than the sporangiophores, rather than as due to a process of 
refusion among the latter. 
Regarding the propriety of retaining our cone in the genus Palaeo- 
stachya , we may note that there is nothing in Weiss’s 2 definition to exclude 
it : ‘ Stem and branches with asterophyllitiform leaves. Cones attached at 
the nodes in pairs (or singly ?), cylindrical, articulated. Bracts free, arcuate ; 
sporangia attached to a straight columella or sporangiophore arising out of 
the axils of the bracts, elliptic, verrucose. Sporangiophore with peltoid 
apex, four inwardly-directed sporangia (secundum Renault).’ In two 
respects the specimen now described does not fit in with the conception of 
Palaeostachya which up to now has been prevalent. The axillary position 
of the sporangiophore appears to be a secondary one, and consequently the 
cone does not provide a link between the Sphenophyll cones and Calamo - 
stachys, but represents a further modification of the latter type ; while the 
number of bracts is certainly not double that of the sporangiophores. But 
1 Lignier, '03. 2 Weiss, 76, p. 103 . 
