History of Monocotyledons. 207 
knowledge of the genus Bennettites , leaves little room for 
doubt that the Charmouth fossil is a well-preserved bennettitean 
inflorescence. The generic name Kaidacarputn , as will be 
shown later, should probably be replaced by Arancarites. 
In the palaeobotanical volume of Zittel’s e Handbuch der 
Palaeontologie Y Schenk refuses to accept many of the older 
records, and inclines to the opinion that no trustworthy 
monocotyledonous plants have been described from Pre- 
cretaceous rocks. In Lester Ward’s ‘ Sketch of Palaeobotany,’ 
the Monocotyledons are represented as being in existence 
in Permo-Carboniferous times, at an epoch very much more 
remote than that in which Dicotyledons first appeared ; it is 
suggested that ‘ the step from the Monocotyledons to the 
Dicotyledons is very great, and it seems to have required 
a vast period of time to accomplish it 1 2 3 .’ Warming, in his 
admirable Systematic Botany, speaks of the two divisions 
of the Angiosperms as having probably had a common origin, 
and adds that — ‘ it is scarcely proved that the Monocoty- 
ledons are the older class V It is unnecessary to quote more 
of the numerous conflicting opinions expressed by botanical 
writers. 
D iff cutties and sources of error in the determination of 
fossil Monocotyledons. 
In the Cretaceous and Tertiary strata specimens of silicified 
Palm-stems are by no means uncommon, and the preservation 
is such that an accurate diagnosis of the species may frequently 
be given ; with this exception, however, we depend very 
largely for our knowledge of fossil Monocotyledons on more 
or less imperfect casts or impressions of structureless stems 
and leaves. If the tissues of such a plant as Myeloxylon , or 
the petioles of certain Ferns and Cycads, have been only 
partially preserved, it is conceivable that such structures 
1 Abth. ii. Palaeophytologie. Munich and Leipzig, 1890, p. 357. 
2 Fifth Annual Report, Geol. Surv. U.S. A. p. 448. 
3 Translation by M. C. Potter, London, 1895, p. 273. 
