^{page 530 note *} This species appears to me to be much more probably a Lepidodendron, with unequally developed dichotomy, than a Halonia.

^{page 530 note †} First proposed by Corda in Sternberg, Flora d. Verwelt, vol. ii. p. 206, 1836Google Scholar. (Not having had access to Corda's addition to Sternberg, I base my remarks on Lomatofloyos from Corda's description and figures in this work.

^{page 531 note *} Fossil Botany, p. 212, Oxford, 1891Google Scholar.

^{page 531 note †} Proc. Roy. Soc., vol. xlii. p. 6.

^{page 531 note ‡} Cash and Lomax Rep. Brit. Assoc. Leeds, 1890, p. 810 (1891).

^{page 532 note *} When the direction of the leaf-cushions has once been determined in any given species, of course in the case of fragments which do not themselves give any evidence of the direction of the cushion, if they are of corresponding age, their direction may safely be inferred from the known direction, determined on more perfect specimens.

^{page 532 note †} Zeiller, Flore foss. bassin houil. et perm, de Brive., p. 77, pi. xiii. fig. 1, and 1 B, 1892.

^{page 532 note ‡} Lepidodendron (?) tumidum, Bunbury, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. iii. p. 432, pi. xxiv. fig. 1.

^{page 533 note *} Phil. Trans., part ii. pl. xxxiv., 1883Google Scholar.

^{page 533 note †} The Lepidodendron sexangulare, Göpp., loc. cit., p. 171, pl. xliii. fig. 4, is a Lepidophloios.

^{page 535 note *} Bull Soc. Géol. de France, 3^e sér. vol. xiv. p. 168.

^{page 535 note †} Loc. cit., p. 490, fig. 170. g.

^{page 535 note ‡} Loc. cit., p. 490, fig. 170, d.

^{page 535 note §} See Kidston, , Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1885, vol. xvi. p. 255Google Scholar, pi. vii. fig. 13, a.

^{page 535 note ∥} Loc. cit., p. 490, fig. 170, e and f.

^{page 535 note ¶} Loc. cit., p. 156.

^{page 536 note *} P. 150, pi. vii. fig. 3.

^{page 536 note †} See Kidston, Catal. Palæoz. Plants, p. 171.

^{page 536 note ‡} Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. xvi., 1885Google Scholar.

^{page 536 note §} Kidston, , Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc., vol. x. p. 365, 1891Google Scholar.

^{page 537 note *} The figure of Lepidodendron dichotomum given in Sternberg, Vers., vol. ii. pi. lxviii. fig. 1, appears to me much more like a Lepidophloios than a Lepidodendron, and it is quite probable that the two figures given by Feistmantel, to which I have referred above, may be the Lepidodendron dichotomum of Presl in Sternberg, pi. lxviii. fig. 1; but are not the plant of the same name given on Sternberg's pis. i., ii.

^{page 537 note †} Stur (for figure showing these points), loc. cit., pi. xix. (xxxvi.), fig. 1.

^{page 537 note ‡} Flora sarœp, foss., pi. xvi. fig. 6.

^{page 538 note *} Trans. Geol. Soc. Lond., 2nd ser. vol. v. pi. xxxviii. fig. 1, 1840Google Scholar.

^{page 539 note *} Morphologically, I believe, the leaf-scars are always at the top of the cushion, but in certain species of Lepidophloios (if not in all at a certain stage of development), the leaf-cushions become deflexed, and then the leaf-scar appears to be at the base—more correctly, is directed downwards.

^{page 540 note *} Goldenberg, , Flora saræp. foss., pl. xiv. fig. 25Google Scholar.

^{page 540 note †} Zeitsch. d. deutsch. geol. Gesell, vol. xxxii. p. 354.

^{page 542 note *} Flora sarœp. foss.

^{page 542 note †} Coal Flora, vol. ii. p. 427, pl. lxviii. figs. 6, 7; vol. iii. p. 782, pl. cv. fig. 1.

^{page 542 note ‡} Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin., vol. xv. pi. viii. fig. 1.

^{page 542 note §} Weiss, , Zeitsch. d. deut. geol. Gesell., vol. xxxiii. p. 354, 1881Google Scholar.

^{page 542 note ∥} Seward, , Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., vol. vii.Google Scholar, “Notes on Lomatophloios macrolepidotus, Gold.”

^{page 542 note ¶} The specimens figured by Mr Seward, loc. cit., pl. iii., are probably the Lepidophloios acerosus, L. and H., sp.

^{page 542 note **} Fossil Botany, p. 235, 1891.

^{page 543 note *} Weiss, Aus d. Steink, 2nd ed., 1881, p, 8, pl. v. fig. 33.

^{page 543 note †} Macfarlane, , Trans. Rot. Soc. Edin., vol. xiv.Google Scholar pl. viii. fig. 1.

^{page 543 note ‡} Géol. et paléont d. bassin houil. du Gard., p. 234, pi. vi. fig. 17, 1890.

^{page 544 note *} Halonia disticha, Morris, Trans. Geol Soc., 2nd ser., vol. v. pl. xxxviii. fig. 1, is Sigillaria discophora.

^{page 544 note †} Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin., vol. xiv. pl. vii.

^{page 544 note ‡} Loc. cit., pl. xvi. fig. vi.

^{page 545 note *} See the figure given in this communication, Pl. II. fig. 5, which confirms this statement.

^{page 546 note *} See l. c. ante, p. 532.

^{page 546 note †} This specimen is refigured on my Pl. II. fig. 8. It is a Lepidophloios, not a Lepidodendron.

^{page 547 note *} p. 171.

^{page 548 note *} In Bothrodendron, the umbilicus is eccentric, in the others, it is almost or quite central.

^{page 548 note †} Comptes rendus, vol. cxiii., 13th July 1891Google Scholar; also ibid., 15th Aug. 1891.

^{page 549 note *} This alteration of the direction of the scales or cushions may occur in all the species, but we do not at present possess the proof that such is the universal rule in this genus.

^{page 549 note *} Geol. Mag., 1873, p. 145.

^{page 549 note †} Catal. Palæoz. Plants, p. 171, 1886.

^{page 550 note *} It might be argued from this specimen that, as only one row is seen, the branch had not more than two rows of Halonial scars in all, but it must be remembered that they commence irregularly and are spirally arranged.

^{page 550 note †} All the other figures of leaf-cushions, × 2, figs. 8Δ, c; 8B, d, e, are also drawn in their present position in regard to the axis of the specimen.

^{page 551 note *} Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin., vol. xiv. pl. viii. fig. 1.

^{page 552 note *} Loc. cit., pl. xvi. fig. 6.

^{page 553 note *} Reg. No. 1805.

^{page 553 note †} See Zeiller, Lepidophloios Dessorti, Bassin houil. et perm. de Brive, Flore foss., 1892, p. 77, pl. xiii. fig. 1.

^{page 554 note *} Culm. Flora d. Ostrauer u. Waldenhurger Schichten, pl. xix. (xxxvi.) fig. 2b.

^{page 554 note †} For the purpose of comparison, I give a figure of a Lepidodendroid cushion and leaf-scar copied from Stur (loc. cit.), pl. xix. fig. 1. Stur describes it as follows:—rb, rhomboidal leaf-scar; b.g., the three points of the leaf vascular bundles; l, the ligule-scar (“Ligulagrube”); b.p.g., point of insertion of the sporangium; m, medial line of leaf-cushion; u the line of the field (“Wangenlinie” of Stur); b.p.g., vascular pits of the cushion (“Gefassedrusen des Blattpolsters”).

The reasons have already been given for the rejection of the terms “ligule-scar” and “point of attachment of the sporangium.” Of the three cicatricules within the leaf-scar, the two lateral—the parichnos of Hovelacque—are probably glandular; the two little pits beneath the leaf-scar, one on each side of the medial line, are also apparently glandular in function, and have no connection with the vascular system.

^{page 554 note ‡} This tubercle is not always present, but the majority of specimens possess it.

^{page 556 note *} These leaf-scars are usually described as being at the base of the cushion, and they certainly on impressions appear to be at the base, but in reality they are at the summit of a deflexed cushion. I am led to this conclusion from what has been said when describing specimens of L. Scoticus, ante, p. 552. The deflection of the leaf-cushions may take place at a very early stage of development.

^{page 557 note *} Coal Flora, pl. cv. fig. 2.

^{page 557 note †} Aus. d. Steink., pi. v. fig. 31.

^{page 559 note *} Vol. iii. pi. cxcvii.

^{page 561 note *} Coal Flora, vol. ii. p. 424, pl. lxviii. fig. 2.

^{page 562 note *} For examination of specimens from some of these localities, I am indebted to Mr Bennie the late Mr C. W. Peach, and Mr J. Gaul.