^{page 27 note *} Scott, D. H., Studies in Fossil Botany, 3rd ed., vol. ii, pp. 57–59. London, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note †} “Lyginorachis papilio Kidston MS.” was mentioned by Kidston, in “Fossil Plants of the Carboniferous Eocks of Great Britain,” Mem. Geol. Survey, Palæontology, vol. ii (1923–1925), p. 19Google Scholar.

^{page 27 note ‡} “L. taitiana Kidston MS.” was mentioned by Kidston (op. cit. (1923–25), p. 18) as “A petiole with Lyginopteris affinities.”

^{page 27 note §} D. H. Scott, loc. cit.

^{page 28 note *} Professor John Walton informs me that these transverse sections form part of a series which included 16 sections (No. 2809, A-P) preserved in the Kidston Collection of Slides in the Department of Botany, University of Glasgow, and that there are, in the same Collection, two longitudinal sections (Nos. 2810, 2811).

^{page 30 note *} Dr S. Williams of tbe Department of Botany, University of Glasgow, kindly informs me that, according to Kidston's register, this specimen was from the Cementstone Group at Longton Burn, near Duns, Berwickshire.

^{page 30 note †} Absalom, R. G., “The Lower Carboniferous Coal-ball Flora of Haltwhistle, Northumberland,” Proc. Univ. Durham Phil. Soc., vol. viii (1929), pp. 73–87.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note *} I am indebted to Dr S. Williams for this observation. The preservation is too poor to allow the preparation of satisfactory photographs.

^{page 31 note †} Absalom, R. G., op. cit. (1929), p. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note *} R. G. Absalom, loc. cit.

^{page 32 note †} Kubart, B., “Pflanzenversteinerungen enthaltende Knollen, etc.,” Sitzungsber. d. K. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, Bd. cxvii, 1908Google Scholar; “Corda's Sphaerosiderite aus dem Steinkohlenbecken Radnitz-Braz in Böhmen, etc.,” ibid. Band cxx, 1911; “Über die Cycadofilicineen Heterangium und Lyginodendron aus dem Ostrauer Kohlenbecken,” Österreichische bot. Zeitschrift, 1914.

^{page 32 note ‡} Scott, D. H., op. cit. (1923), p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note §} Stur, D., “Die Culmflora der Ostrauer und Waldenburger Schichten,” Abhand. der K. K. Reichsanstalt zu Wien, Band viii, Heft 2, p. (151) 257, pls. viii, ix.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note ¶} Since the above was sent to press, DrJongmans, W. J. (Jaarverslag over 1929, Geologisch Bureau voor het Nederlandsche Mijngebied te Heerlen (1930), p. 80)Google Scholar has described cupules attached to impressions of the fronds of Sphenopteris hoeninghausi. They are identical with those described by Oliver and Scott on the (petrified) Lyginopteris oldhamia and, Dr Jongmans observes, “are of the same type described by Stur for Calymmatotheca stangeri. Drawings shown to me by Prof. Oliver, and made after Stur's original specimen, so highly agree with the cupules of S. hoeninghausi that there is no doubt whatever as to the generical identity, even so that they strongly point into a specificai identity between S. stangeri and S. hoeninghausi,” and concludes “identity, in my opinion, is not impossible.”

^{page 33 note *} Lyginopteris oldhamia was first described in 1866 by Binney, E. W. (Proc. Lit. and Phil. Soc. Manchester, vol. v (1866), p. 133)Google Scholar as Dadoxylon. Williamson, W. C. (Monthly Micro. Journ., vol. ii (1869), p. 66)CrossRefGoogle Scholar transferred it to his new genus Dictyoxylon and later (Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B, vol. clxiii (1873), p. 377) re-described it. Subsequent work on the species was done by Williamson and Scott, Lomax, Brenchley, and others. Williamson (ibid., p. 393) regarded L. oldhamia as being related to Lyginodendron landsburgi. The genus Lyginodendron was instituted by Gourlie, W. in 1843 (Proc. Phil. Soc. Glasgow, vol. i (1842–1843), p. 108, pl. ii)Google Scholar for a stem bearing rounded longitudinal ridges but no leaf-scars. The type specimen, named after its discoverer, is in the Kidston Collection (No. 3220) and was re-figured by Professor Seward, (Fossil Plants, vol. iii (1917), fig. 401, p. 37).Google Scholar A similar fossil (No. 60) was collected by Dr H. M. Cadell from the Carboniferous Limestone Series at Grange Colliery, Bo'ness, Linlithgowshire. This form was described (but not figured) by Kidston, in 1885 (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 5th ser., vol. xvi (1885), p. 167)Google Scholar as “specimen No. 10”. It is no doubt an old Lepidodendron stem with crinkled bark and obliterated leaf-scars, and Kidston compared it with L. veltheimianum Sternb., and pointed out that Dawson, J. W. (Acadian Geology (1878), 3rd ed., p. 455Google Scholar, text-fig. 170 C) figured a similar specimen as “Lepidodendron—old bark.” The Oldham plant was, therefore, for some time known as Lyginodendron oldhamiwm. In 1899, Potonié, H. (Lehrbuch der Pflanzenpalaeontologie (1899), p. 170)Google Scholar suggested the name at present in general use, Lyginopteris. Recently, however, DrJongmans, (op. cit. (1930), p. 80)Google Scholar has pointed out that Stur's name Calymmatotheca (Culm Flora, Heft 2, Abhandl. k.k. Geol. Reichsanst., Band viii (1877), p. 149) has priority over Potonié's Lyginopteris, and that the plant should be named Calymmatotheca hoeninghausi (the sterile leaves, occurring as impressions, being first described and figured by Brongniart, A. (Hist. des végét. foss., vol. i (1829), p. 199, pl. lii)Google Scholar as Sphenopteris hoeninghausi).

^{page 34 note †} Oliver, F. W., “Über die neuentdeckten Samen der Steinkohlenfarne, Biolog, Centralblatt, Band xxv, No. 12, p. 401, fig. 6, 1905.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note ‡} Benson, M., “Telangium scotti,” Ann. Bot., vol. xviii (1904), p. 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 34 note §} Crookall, R., “Crossotheca and Lyginopteris oldhamia,” Ann. Bot., vol. xliv (1930), p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note ║} Potonié, H., “Über eininge Carbonfarne,” pt. ii, Jahrb. k. preuss. geol. Landes. für 1890, p. 16, pls. vii–ix, 1891.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note ¶} See Kidston, R., “Fossil Plants of the Carboniferous Rocks of Great Britain,” Mem. Geol. Survey, Palæontology, vol. ii (1923–1925), pp. 333, 470.Google Scholar In both species there is considerable variation in the form of the pinnules according to their position on the frond. In Lyginopteris oldhamia, however, according to Kidston, the pinnules are smaller, more solid, and more closely placed than in C. stangeri.

^{page 34 note **} Ibid., p. 334.

^{page 34 note ††} Ibid., p. 467.