Holden . — Some Fossil Plants from Eastern Canada . 251 
to Voltzia coburgensis , although he admits that he never found them 
in actual connexion, our specimen cannot be identified with his. The 
evidence furnished by the Coburg specimen and by Schenk’s figure is, 
however, sufficient to warrant referring the New Brunswick fossils to Voltzta 
coburgensis , Schaur. 
Before discussing further its affinities, it is necessary at this point to refer 
briefly to its external features. As defined by Brongniart, 1 Voltzia closely 
resembles Araucaria excelsa in general habit, even in heterophylly. The cones, 
however, are stated to have nothing in common with Araucaria , but 
simulate closely those of the Taxodineae, notably Cryptomeria. Each 
scale is double, consisting of a so-called ‘ Samen- ’ or ‘ Fruchtschuppe ’ 
which bears the seeds (two in V. coburgensis ), and a ‘ Deckschuppe \ The 
‘ Samenschuppe ’, or ovuliferous scale, is more or less deeply lobed. There 
are a number of minor differences between V. heterophylla and V. cobur- 
gensis, in the foliage, and especially in the structure of the cone. In the 
former, the cones are solitary, not more than three times as long as broad, 
and the cone scale is deeply two or three lobed, as contrasted with the 
latter, where the cones are grouped, ten times as long as broad, and the 
cone scale only crenulate. Further, V . heterophylla does not occur after 
the Muschelkalk, where it is replaced by V. coburgensis , which extends 
well into the Jura. Schimper recognized these differences and proposed to 
change the name V. coburgensis to Glyptolepis coburgensis ; 2 while Potonie 3 
used the name Voltziopsis coburgensis to include the cones of Glyptolepis , 
the pith casts of Voltzia coburgensis , and certain impressions known as 
Cheirolepis. Zittel, 4 however, does not consider these differences as of 
sufficient importance to warrant a generic distinction. The difference in 
configuration of the pith cast seems considerable, but until the wood 
structure of Voltzia heterophylla is known the best evidence is unavailable. 
As regards systematic position, Voltzia is usually placed under the 
Taxodineae, as by Zittel, 5 Gothan, 6 Potonie, 7 Zeiller, 8 &c. Although the 
resemblance of the leaves to those of Araucaria is recognized, and the bract 
on the back of the ovuliferous scale homologized by Potonid with the 
ligule of Araucaria , the double nature of the cone scale is generally 
considered enough to justify including it with the Taxodineae. On the 
other hand, Endlicher, Unger, and Goeppert put it with the Cupressineae, 
while Schimper places it with the Abietineae. Recent investigations have 
shown the futility of attempting to classify on the basis of external 
appearances. For example, Dr. Jeffrey has shown that the genera Geinitzia , 
1 Brongniart, Ad. : Ann. Sci. Nat., Ser. 1. t. 15, 1828. 
2 Schimper : Paleontologie vegetale. 3 Potonie : Lehrbuch, p. 303. 
4 Zittel, Karl: Palaeontologie, p. 288. 5 Zittel : loc. cit., p. 287. 
6 Gothan : Ueber die Coniferen und ihre Verwandten in ihrer Vorgeschichte. Naturwissen- 
schaftliche Wochenschrift, June, 1911. 
7 Potonie : loc. cit., p. 300. 8 Zeiller : Elements de Paleobotanique, p. 267. 
