I'AUT 3.] Ftuimmitel: Bphenoplujlhm and Trizdjia speciv.ia. 163 
Notes on the genus Sphenophyluum and other Eqdisetaceai; with reference to 
THE Indian form Teiztgia speciosa, Roj'le (^Sphenophyllum trizygia, Ung.), 
hy Ottokar Feistmantel, M.D., Falceontologist, Geological Survey of India. 
Last year a peculiar discovery was announced by Mr. Star, at Vienna, on tlio 
relations of certain genera of Eqnisetaceons plants in tbe coal-foi-mation. The 
observations refer also to the genus Sphenophyllum ; so it will not bo out of place 
to note this discovery, and to add some remarks on those plants with reference to 
the Equisetaceous plants in the Indian coal-beds, especially to Trizygia speciosa. 
The most common genera of tbe Eguisetacere in the carboniferous formation arc 
those which were described as GalamUes (Suckow, 1784), Asterophyllites (Brong- 
niart, 1828), Annularia (Sternberg, 1822), and SjdienojAiyllimi (Brongniart, 1828). 
These were all described as distinct genera. 
In 1852, however. Professor Bitter von Ettingshausen,! placed the genus 
Asterophyllites, as “ rami et raniuli,” to Oalamites, although, as it appears, there 
was no direct evidence for the proceeding. In 1809 ilr. W. Carruthers “ united 
all the three genera, i.e., Asterophyllites, Annularia, and SphenophyUmn to one 
group under the name Calamites, considering them as throe different forms of 
foliage of this one genus, although, as it appears, the author had no direct evidence 
for this theory. 
Professor Schimper (1869) placed the genus Asterophyllites, which he named 
Calamocladus under the heading “rami et ramuli foliosi,” to Calamites; but 
Sphenopihylhcm and Annularia remained independent genera. 
Professor Weiss (1871) again'* urges the indcjiendent nature of all the genera 
abovenamed; and so does Professor Hcer, even in his recent juiblications. 
In 1874 it w'as shown by Professor Williamson,'* who based his conclusion on 
the microscopical structure, that Asterophyllites and SphenophyUmn were very 
closely related genera. 
In 1870 another systematical place was assigned to SphenophyUmn by Pro¬ 
fessor Schenk,* who arrived at the conclusion that Sphenophyllum is more related 
to the LycopodiaeecB than to the Equisetaceie. 
To this Mr. Stur wrote a reply under the title “ 1st das SphenophyUmn in der 
Thateine Lycopodiaceoe,*” where he endeavoui-ed to show that the systematical 
position of SphenophyUmn is with the Equisetacem. 
So stood the case till last year, when Mr. Stur announced his discovery,’ 
which was as follows : On a slab of shale were found several branches of an Astero¬ 
phyllites with branchlets, which showed the foliage of a Sphenophyllum (Sph. 
dichotomicm), and had a fructification of the kind of Volkmannia, (Stur). On other 
’ Steinkohlenflora voii Ttadiiitz, Ahh. d. k. k. geol. Reicbsanstalt, 'Vol. II, p. 24. 
^ In Seeman’s .Tonrnal of Botany, 1867. 
® Possile PI. d. jiingst. Steinkohlf. mid dcs Eothliegenden, &c., pp. 107, 108, 2nd Part. 
^ Philosoph. Trans. E. Soc., Vol. 164, p. 41 ef seq., 1875. 
* N. J. f. M., 1877, p. 435, liefer. 
« Jalirb. d. k. k. geol. Rclistlt., 1877, Vol. XXVII, pp. 7—32. 
' Verliandl. d. k. k. geol. liei.slisan,stalt, 1870, p. 327. See N. Jabrb. f. Min., &c., 1879, pp. 256 
and 260. 
