130 
James Small. 
Eupatorium and Senecio. The method apparently folovved by these 
authors of comparing the fossil fruits in the first instance with the 
fruits of species now existing in the same localities avoids the 
difficulties and uncertainties which would undoubtedly arise if the 
comparison were wider. It is seldom impossible hut sometimes very 
difficult to assign recent well-preserved fruits to a particular species. 
The deposits dealt with are, however, comparatively recent, and 
the limited comparison is, therefore, probably quite justified and 
the determinations can be accepted as accurate. 
Opinions differ on the exact age of the peperino from which 
the leaves of Tussilago Farfara are described by Antonelli (cp. 15). 
As that tufa is, however, certainly post-glacial and the fruits are 
recorded from both neolithic and Cromerian beds the determination 
of these very distinctive leaves can be taken as corroborated by 
Reid’s evidence. Antonelli’s record of Beilis perennis from the 
same locality, although not corroborated in the same way, may 
be accepted. 
The second part of Table XIII is occupied by a series of 
unclassified genera and species which require more critical 
consideration. The genus Bacchantes of Saporta rests on a 
resemblance of these fossil leaves to those of Baccharis. For 
present purposes they may be classed with the Silphium -like 
leaves described by Massalongo as Silphidium. Ber.tham’s comment 
(see Table XIII) on the identification of these leaves is echoed by 
more than one palaeobotanist. The fossil leaves of Hieracites 
Salyorum, Sap. and Parthenites priscus, Sap. appear to the writer 
to be very probable determinations resting on much the same 
ground as Reid’s identifications. The leaves of Hyoserites Lingua 
Ettingsh, associated as they are with beaked achenes, seem to be 
the most authentic Compositae leaves of the older strata. 
The other fossils are chiefly fruits ; Bidentites antiquus as 
figured by Heer (2, PI. 101, Fig. 20) and Zittel (38, Fig. 404), is a 
fruit with a bidentate apex, but there its similarity to the fruits of 
Bidens ends. The teeth or awns arise close together on the con¬ 
tracted apex of the fruit and diverge at an angle rarely met with 
in Bidens, where the awns are erect, almost parallel and arise on 
opposite sides of a more or less truncate apex. The identification 
would certainly not survive the application of the criteria adopted 
by the Reids. 
Carpolithus hyoseritiformis, Berry, is placed by its author among 
the genera “ incertae sedis” (3, p.353), at the same time he says“ it is 
almost certainly an achene of some Wilcox species of Compositae.” 
As figured and described by Berry this fruit has the characteristic 
