History of Monocotyledons. 2 1 1 
justification for the employment of a generic name, and still 
less of one implying a monocotyledonous affinity. 
A fragment figured by the same author in the Flore 
Jurassique, as an example of Y it c cites \ may, as Nathorst has 
suggested, be a piece of the rachis of a Fern. In no case do we 
appear to have evidence enough to warrant the use of this 
generic term for Triassic and Jurassic specimens. The genus 
Aethophyllum L ' stands for certain specimens of which the real 
nature is still c very little understood 3 .’ There seem to be 
no good reasons for accepting the suggestion that these 
problematical fossils should be placed among Monocotyledons. 
The woody stems and linear leaves are not inconsistent with 
a coniferous plant, but it is useless to speculate as to the 
affinity of the imperfect and structureless impressions. 
Starkie Gardner 4 , in the paper previously referred to, has 
called attention to a fossil described in 1850 by Buckman 5 , 
from the base of the Lias in the neighbourhood of Bristol, as 
Najadita, and expresses the opinion that it should probably 
be regarded as a Moss resembling the recent Fontinalis. He 
adds in a footnote, that a capsule had been received since the 
paper was written, but this has not been described or figured. 
In PI. V, Fig. 2, accompanying Gardner’s paper, a specimen is 
represented as £ undoubtedly 5 a monocotyledonous leaf. The 
long and narrow parallel-veined pinnae of such a Cycad as 
Zamia angustifolia , Jacq., offer a striking resemblance to linear 
monocotyledonous leaves 6 , and it is a bold assumption that 
the small Purbeck fossil is certainly a Monocotyledon. 
In 1851 Bunbury 7 described a specimen from the collection 
of Mr. Bean under the name of Catamites Beanii ; the fossil 
1 Paleontologie Fram^aise, Vol. iv, PI. XXII. 
2 Schimper and Mougeot, loc. cit. p. 37. 
3 Solms-Laubach, Fossil Botany, Oxford, 1891, p. 366. 
i 1. c. p. 203. 
5 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Vol. vi, 1850, p. 415. 
6 This specimen, now in the British Museum collection, is represented in 
Gardner’s figure approximately natural size, not half natural size as stated in the 
plate. It may possibly be equisetaceous, but there is at least no sufficient reason 
for describing it as a true monocotyledonous leaf. 
7 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Vol. vii, 1851, p. 189. 
