NOTES. 
A REPLY TO PROF. JEFFREY’S ARTICLE ON YEZONIA AND 
CRYPTOMERIOPSIS. — Prof. Jeffrey's article in the last number of the ‘Annals 
of Botany', pp. 767-73, would have created a different impression in the minds 
of some readers if he had stated that ‘ the large memoir ' by himself and Dr. Hollick 
‘ so often quoted' in that article had not appeared till the paper by Prof. Fujii and 
me had been read at the Royal Society. We put a note regretting that fact, and that 
we had not had the advantage of comparison with his work, at the end of our 
bibliography. 
At a future date I am intending to treat the subject at greater length, but 
the publication of Prof. Jeffrey’s paper calls for some immediate recognition. I have 
only seen a few sections of Br achy phy llum, kindly lent me by Prof. Oliver of London 
and Prof. Seward of Cambridge, and they certainly show considerable similarity 
to the plant described by us as Yezonia. All the data necessary, and in particular the 
fructifications, are not available however. 
The cone figured and described by Jeffrey and Hollick (‘ Studies of Cretaceous 
Coniferous Remains from Kreischerville, New York,' 1909, p. 37), so far as it goes, does 
not coincide at all with the petrified seeds and scales described by Stopes and Fujii 
(Phil. Trans., London, 1909, p. 33), our fructification showing many points of 
structural similarity to Yezonia , which make its connexion with that genus almost 
certain. Other cones more or less indefinitely associated with Brachyphyllum do not 
help to bring the plants together. 
The further information as regards vegetative structure given by Prof. Jeffrey in 
his recent paper in the Annals certainly tends to support the view that Yezonia belongs 
to the genus Brachyphyllum. The fructifications, however, can alone determine this 
conclusively. 
As regards Cryptomeriopsis Prof. Jeffrey’s conclusions seem less sound. We 
have no evidence of fructifications. The points which he mentions as like Geinitzia 
in the vegetative parts of our plant are not sufficient to unite it to that genus. 
Geinitzia ( Sequoia ) Reichenhachi is put among the plants with Araucariaceous affinity 
by Jeffrey and Hollick, and when the Japanese fossil is swept into that all-embracing 
group, I must protest. Except for the lack of stone cells in the phloem, Cryptomeri- 
opsis shows no feature that would justify more than specific distinction from the living 
monotypic genus Cryptomeria now endemic in Japan. Prof. Jeffrey’s objection to 
Geinitzia being put with the genus Sequoia is justified, and I agree with him, but it is 
beside the point in the present argument. We have never suggested that our genus 
[Annals of Botany, Vol. XXV. No. XCVII. January, 1911.] 
