340 Relation Between Cycadites and Pseudocycas. 
2. Pseudocycas belongs to the group of Bennettitales both on 
the character of the stomata and on that of the epidermal cells. 
3. The presence of a double or a single midrib is of no 
diagnostic importance. 
4. The name Pseudocycas should be applied only to fronds 
whose cuticlar structure is known; others should he referred to 
Cycadites. 
In conclusion, the writer wishes to thank Professor Seward for 
valuable suggestions in regard to this work; Dr. E. A. N. Arberfor 
specimens of Cycadites Saportce from the Sedgwick Museum ; and 
Mr. VV. A. Edwards for affording facilities for preparing specimens 
of the cuticle of Cycadites Roenieri in the British Museum. 
DESCRIPTION OF PLATE III. 
Fig. 1. Cycas siamensis ; impression of upper surface of fresh leaf. 
Fig. 2. ,, ,, ,, ,, lower ,* ,, ,, 
Fig. 3. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, dried ,, 
Fig. 4. C. revolutn ; impression of upper surface of dried leaf. 
Fig. 5. ,, ,, „ lower ,, 
Fig. 6. Cycadites Sapovtce ; cuticle from upper and lower surfaces. 
Fig. 7. 
* » 
» 1 
,, lower surface of midrib. 
Fig. 8. C. Roemcri ; 
) > 
,, upper and lower surfaces. 
Fig. 9. ,, 
l » 
,, upper surface. 
Fig. 10. ,, 
»* 
,, stomatal area. 
LIST OF 
REFERENCES. 
1. Nathorst, A. G. ‘‘Palaobotanische Mitteilungen. I, II.” Kongl. Svenska 
Vet.-Akad. Handl., Bd. 42, No. 5, 1907. 
2. Saporta, G. de. “ Paleontologie Frangaise. Plantes Jurassiques.” 
3. Schenk, A. “ Fossile Flore d. Nordwestdeutchen Wealdenformation.” 
Cassel, 1871. 
4. Seward, A. C. “ Wealden Flora, II.” British Museum Catalogue, 
London, 1895. 
5. Thomas, H. H., and Bancroft, N. “ Cuticles of Recent and Fossil 
Cycadean Fronds.” Trans. Linn. Soc., Bot.,VoI.8, 
Part 5, 2nd Ser., 1913. 
