259 
Pteridophytes . Are they vestigial? 
In the genus Lycopodites , whatever errors may have been 
made in ascribing to it forms which are of other affinity 1 , 
there are certainly some specimens which show a habit very 
like some of our modem species of Lycopodium and Selagi- 
nella , and with their strobili but little differentiated from the 
vegetative region. Lycopodites ciliatus % Kidston 2 , from the 
middle coal measures, shows no clearly differentiated strobilus : 
the sporophylls are quite like those of Selaginella , with ciliate 
margin and broad base, subtending sporangia which are not 
radially elongated ; but there is no evidence of any alternating 
sterile and fertile zones, as in L. Selago. Mr. Kidston re- 
marks that e mixed with the leaves are macrospores of small 
size. 1 These are well seen, and of the zonated type : probably 
the plant was heterosporous, and may have been like a Sela- 
ginella with an ill-defined strobilus. Goldenberg 3 distin- 
guished two divisions of Lycopodites : ‘ Pananthitesl in which 
the sporangia are sessile in the axils of leaves not clearly 
differentiated from the foliage leaves, and ‘ Lepidotites’ those in 
which the sporangia are seated in terminal strobili. A good 
example of the latter is L. Stockii , Kidston, quoted by Solms- 
Laubach as having the habit of Lycopodium Phlegmaria 4 . 
These and other cases afford sufficient evidence that both of 
these types existed at least as early as the Middle Coal 
Measures. But as yet I know of no early evidence of the 
‘ Selago ’ condition in them : it is to be remarked, however, 
that specimens of these small fossils are rare, and that they 
are easily overlooked. 
Various Lepidostrobi , in which the strobilus is definitely 
limited, show imperfect sporangia towards the apex. In 
L. B'rownii I have observed and figured sporangia of small 
size towards the upper end of the strobilus 5 : they contain no 
1 Fossil Botany, Solms-Laubach, Engl. Ed., p. 186. 
2 See Kidston, Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc., Glasgow, 1901, p. 37. Mr. Kidston has 
kindly shown me his specimen (No. 1743), upon which, together with his text, 
these notes are based. 
3 Flora Saraepontana Fossilis, 1855, p. 9 ; see also Kidston, loc. cit., p. 32. 
4 Fossil Botany, Engl. Ed., p. 186. 
5 Studies, i, Phil. Trans., vol. 185, p. 527, PL XL VIII, Figs. 95, 99, 100, 
