250 Holden. — Some Fossil Plants from Eastern Canada. 
The pith cast is the most distinctive feature of our fossil. It suggests 
at once Tylodendron , but differs from that characteristically Permian type 
in that there are no periodic swellings, and that the rhombic areolae are 
never slit at the lower end. Professor Seward 1 has described specimens of 
the pith casts of Voltzia heterophylla , Brongn., in the Strassburg Museum, 
which resemble the New Brunswick casts in the absence of nodal swellings, 
but differ in having the scars always slit like those of Tylodendron. His 
observations are confirmed by those of Blankenhorn , 2 though it is possible 
that the latter author is referring to impressions of decorticated, and not 
delignified, stems. In the description of Weiss , 3 there is no doubt that such 
is the case, since he notes that each rhombic area, in addition to the slit, has 
in the centre an elliptical scar with a central thickening. Bronn 4 is also 
probably referring to surface impressions. Our specimen is, however, 
identical with a specimen of Voltzia coburgensis , Schaur., from the Keuper of 
Coburg, loaned by Professor Arthur Willey from the Peter Redpath Museum 
of McGill University, Montreal. F'ig. 12 represents this cast, and its 
detailed resemblance to the New Brunswick specimen of Fig. 11 is evident. 
That this is V. coburgensis is shown beyond question by its similarity to 
the type figured by Schenk 5 from the Lettenkohle of Estenfeld. On the 
other hand, V. coburgensis , as figured by Potonie 6 under the name of 
Voltziopsis coburgensis , has sometimes the slit scars of V. heterophylla , 
though usually there is no slit. Further, the description of Glyptolepis 
coburgensis , 7 Schimper, which both Schimper himself and Potonie 8 * consider 
the same as Voltzia coburgensis , Schauroth, contains the following : 
‘ cicatrices in ramis derelictis quadrato-rhombeae.’ If by ‘ ramis derelictis’ 
Schimper means pith casts, there seems to be every reason for calling our 
specimen Voltzia coburgensis. Schimper, however, goes on to say that 
the wood of Glyptolepis is probably A raucarioxylon keuperianum , Goepp. 
Araucarioxylon keuperianum'* or Dadoxylon keuperianum 10 agrees with 
our specimen in the absence of annual rings, but differs in that the 
radial pits are sometimes biseriate, and always approximated closely ; 
further, the rays are occasionally two cells in width. Accordingly, if 
Schimper be correct in referring the wood of Arauca 7 r ioxylon keuperianu 7 n 
1 Seward, A. C. (’ 90 ) : Tylodendron , Weiss, and Voltzia heterophylla , Brongn. Geol. Mag., 
p. 218. 
2 Blankenhorn (’86) : Die fossile Flora des Buntsandsteins und des Muschelkalks der Umgegend 
von Commern. Palaeontograph, vol. xxxii, p. 135, PI. XXII. 
3 Weiss, C. E. : Ueber Voltzia rind andere Pflanzen des bunten Sandsteins zwischen der unteren 
Saar und dem Rheine. N. Jahrb. f. Min., 1864, p. 279. 
4 Bronn : N. Jahrb. f. Min., 1858, p. 139. 
5 Schenk : Beitiage zur Flora der Vorwelt. Palaeontograph, vol. ii, p. 308, PI. XLVI, Fig. 2. 
6 Potonie, H. : Lehrbuch der Pflanzenpalaeontologie, p. 302. 
7 Schimper: Paleontologie v^getale, v. 2. 8 Potonie: loc. cit., 303. 
9 Goeppert, Monog. Conif. foss., p. 234. 
10 Endlicher : Syn. Conif., p. 289 ; Unger : Gen. et Spec., p. 379. 
