32 
STIGMARIA. 
Feb., 1889. 
8. —Seeing, then, that as Stigmaria does not occur below 
coal-beds in the shape of roots, and that we have strong 
grounds for supposing that it was not always a root, am I not 
perfectly justified in saying that, in my opinion, the fossils 
from Shropshire and other localities furnish forms the true 
character of which is impossible to be misunderstood ? At all 
events I say this, that in absence of proof to the contrary, the 
Stigmaria question is not yet settled. If the specimens here 
brought under our notice are not considered good enough to 
set the matter at rest, it is hoped that better ones will soon 
be forthcoming. 
9. —Do we not seem to have very good ground for con¬ 
cluding that Stigmaria, (?the tree-root types) were aquatic or 
water-loving plants, since they so frequently occur—evidently 
in situ —in cannel, a substance, I suppose, we all firmly believe 
to have been formed or grown in water (or at all events a kind of 
black vegetable slime or soft mud) ? For instance, at Glapwell, 
in Derbyshire, no less than an area of 300 acres of cannel, 
varying in thickness between 2J and 12 inches, has been 
proved to exist in the middle of the “Top Hard” coal 
—a seam averaging 5ft. 6in. thick. Stigmaria is common in 
this cannel. 
10. — As Prof. Williamson savs in his memoir on 
Stigmaria ficoides, “ no plant should be regarded as 
Stigmaria unless its internal organisation is typically identical 
with that of S. ficoides ; ” it follows, does it not, that as the 
particular specimens I am describing in this paper have parted 
with their internal structure, and only possess the usual out¬ 
ward markings or stigma (rootlet scars), we have no proof that 
they were ever roots of trees at all ? We are hardly justified 
even in concluding that they ever belonged to S. ficoides. It 
is surely by inference only that the two things can possibly 
be said to be one and the same fossil under different 
conditions ! 
11. —I should be the last to quarrel with those who assert 
that the tree-root type (Williamson’s S. ficoides ) may some¬ 
times have become broken up under pressure or consolidation 
into short lengths, resembling, more or less, some of the forms 
I have here figured, but when we come across specimens so 
very numerous and so little resembling the form even of tree 
roots or fragments thereof, I do think we are dealing 
with a species differing from S. ficoides (Williamson). 
