^éffA'

â– *

•1

öf){i 5726

ILLTJS TEAT IONS

OP

fossil PLANTS;

being

AN AUTOTYPE KEPRODUCTION OF SELECTED DRAWINGS.

gUPEBTISIOtr OÏ THE EAT®

dr. LIKDLEY and MR. W. HUTTON,

BETWEEN THE YEARS 1835 AND 1840, AND NOW EOE THE FIRST TIME PUBLISHED BY

THE NORTH OF ENGLAND INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERS.

EDITED BY Ö. A. LEBOUE,

MEMEEE, of TtlE INSTIIUÏE, F.D.a. LoNBÜS AUD BELeiUM, E.B.G.S,, CORK. MBM. OF THE SoC. GEOL. do Nor», ASD LECTOKER is OEOtOUICAl SUBFEYINO is the UNIVBIlalTYnbsp;OF Doeham College of Physical Science, Newoastle-on-Tyne.

Hewcastle-uiJutt-TTjtie;

PUBLISHED FOR THE INSTITUTE BY A.-REID, PRINTING COURT BUILDINGS. LONDON; LONGMANS AND COMPANY.

[all bishts resbkved,]

NEWCASTLE-UPoy-TYNE :

PUBLISilET) FOR THE INSTITUTE BY ANDREW REID, PRINTING COURT BUILDINGS, AKENSIDE HILL.

introductoey notice.

Me. Hubeet Laws, a Member of tbe Council of the North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers,nbsp;having presented to that body a large collection of originalnbsp;drawings and papers which had belonged to the late Mr.nbsp;William Huttok, the Council caused them to be examinednbsp;and reported on.

The collection was found to consist of a great number of the original drawings, from which had beennbsp;taken the engravings illustrating Lindley and Hutton snbsp;“ Fossil Flora,” and a large number which had not beennbsp;published, but which, from pencil notes on them, hadnbsp;evidently been prepared under their supervision and withnbsp;the intention of forming a continuation of that work.

These drawings represent important and sometimes unique specimens •, it was therefore resolved by thenbsp;Council to publish sixty-four of them, which were thoughtnbsp;most likely to prove of value to students of Fossil Botany ]nbsp;and the task of editing the work was entrusted to Mr.nbsp;G-. A. Lebour, who is solely responsible for the viewsnbsp;expressed in his descriptions accompanying the plates.

Mr. Lebour was at the same time entrusted with editing the Catalogue of the specimens in the Huttonnbsp;Collection of Fossil Plants, which is the “Catalogue”nbsp;referred to in the present work.

(iv)

As the Hutton Collection of Fossils, from which these drawings were made, is the property of the Institute, thenbsp;presentation by Mr. Laws of the original drawings isnbsp;considered by the Institute as a most valuable acquisition.nbsp;The Council hopes that the missing drawings may benbsp;found, and also presented to the Institute.

The Fossils themselves have for some years been deposited by the Council in the Museum of the Naturalnbsp;History Society of Newcastle for exhibition. The originalnbsp;drawings will remain in the Library of the Institute.

The portrait of Hutton, which forms the frontispiece, is a copy of the original by Carrick, in the possession ofnbsp;the Institute.

Newcastle, December, 1877.

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

The Sixty-four Plates now published by the North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers,nbsp;a selection from a much larger number, which werenbsp;prepared under the direction of Dr. Lindley and Mr.nbsp;Hutton, at a time when they still had the intention ofnbsp;continuing the publication of their “Fossil Flora.” Innbsp;the tash of selection, the Editor has received much kindlynbsp;help from Professor W. C. Williamson, F.R.S., who wasnbsp;himself one of the chief contributors to the “ Fossil Flora.”nbsp;Those Plates have been chosen which represent apparentlynbsp;nndescribed, rare, beautiful, or problematical specimens—nbsp;such specimens, in fact, as would, if brought together, formnbsp;the chief attractions of a collection. In the brief remarksnbsp;which accompany the Plates, the Editor has made as muchnbsp;use as he could of the notes referring to them left by thenbsp;authors of the “Fossil Flora” or their correspondents.nbsp;He has followed, as far as he could, from indications ofnbsp;date, etc., the order in which Hutton evidently intendednbsp;fo publish the Plates, and hence their present somewhatnbsp;unsystematic arrangement. The manuscripts left bynbsp;Hutton comprise not only notes by himself and Lindley,nbsp;hut interesting letters from Professors Phillips and W. C.nbsp;Williamson, Sir Roderick I. Murchison, and Messrs. Bean,nbsp;WiTHAM, Conway, Murray, etc., of which a small selection

(yi)

will be found printed in the Appendix. The drawings have for the most part an artistic value of their own,nbsp;apart from their scientific importance, and the Autotypenbsp;process by which they have been reproduced is such asnbsp;to leave nothing to be desired as to perfect accuracy.nbsp;Special attention may perhaps be directed to the Platesnbsp;by Price, whilst others are from the hands of eminentnbsp;naturalists, such as the late Professor Phillips, Professornbsp;Williamson, the late Mr. Denny, etc.

G. A. LEBOUR.

CONTENTS.

Introductory ïïotice......

Editor’s Preface ...

Descriptions of Plates. {See Index of Species.)

Appendix...... ... nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;•••nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;•••nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;/'I

Letters from; Tiie late Professor Jolm Plnllips

The late Sir R-LMuroHson, Bart.

Professor W. C. Williamson •••

Jolan Dram, Esq.

Lev. W. T. Bree

EREAT A.

Page 53, line 5 from top, for “oxyphillaquot; read “ oxyphylla.”

Page 128, line 5 from bottom, for “Sphenoptens” read “Sigillaria.quot;

fossil plants.

PLATE I.

Calamites cannaeformis.

SCHLOTH.

TLe very beautiful specimen represented in this Plate comes from the sliale lying immediately above the Ben-sham coal-seam, in Jarrow Colliery.

Owing to the fact that towards their base the stems ^nd branches of Calamites are very similar in several ofnbsp;Ihe so-called species allied to Calamites cam(Bformis, absolute certainty cannot be claimed for the present reference,nbsp;dt is^ hoTvever, that adopted by both Lindlby and Hutton,nbsp;iu speaking of this specimen, and that likewise followednbsp;in the “ Catalogue,” p. 6.

Unfortunately, beyond mere mention, the Hutton papers do not contain any details respecting this, innbsp;Some respects, unique fossil.

It is from a structural point of view that it derives importance, since it shows us in a most clear and precisenbsp;manner the mode of attachment of branches to stem, ornbsp;branchlets to branch—^for it is, of course, impossible tonbsp;say whether the central column be the main stem of anbsp;somewhat slender plant, or the branch of a larger individual, although the latter alternative is probably thenbsp;right one.

We have here, then, a horizontal section of a Calamitean stem or branch, from seven points of the circumference

of which spring seven leaf-bearing branches or branchlets in a regular verticillate or candelabra-like arrangement,nbsp;upon which we look vertically, either from above, or,nbsp;more probably, from below.

Perhaps nothing is shown more conclusively in this specimen than the very variable manner in which thenbsp;gradual lengthening of the internodes from the base upwards takes place in different branches, even belongingnbsp;to the same whorl. Clearly specific characters basednbsp;upon this point alone (as they have more than once beennbsp;based) must be of very small value. In the present casenbsp;two species of this kind could obviously be claimednbsp;growing on the same stem.

At the point of junction between the branches and the stem a more or less confused mass of carbonized matter,nbsp;rather better shown in the fossil than in the Plate, represents the outer bark and sub-jacent vascular zonenbsp;uniting the members to the parent trunk.

The Plate is slightly reduced from the original drawing by Mr. T. Johnson, which is itself about half the size ofnbsp;the specimen.

PLATE II.

Calamites nodosus.

SCHLOTH.

. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;XV. of the “ Fossil Flora” a specimen very

®iïïiilar to the present one is figured. Each lacks Something possessed by the other. In the former anbsp;i^anchlet, with attached Asterophyllitic leaf-whorls, isnbsp;®6n apparently in place with regard to the Calamiteannbsp; 1?*^ it® side, but the actual junction, if it ever werenbsp;is not visible. On the other hand, our drawingnbsp;o'Ws the embranchment very clearly, but the leaf-whorlsnbsp;missing.

to their figure the authors of the “ Fossil remark:—“Although we have examined a finenbsp;leaf^^ ^Pocimens of this fossil [Calamites], where thenbsp;y^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;branch is always associated with the stem,

^0 instance they have been found actually in tonbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1? Tab. 15, being the nearest approach

‘iocid nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;tiave seen, we pause before we finally

/((-i ® [that the leaves are really those of Calamites].”

ossil Flora,” Vol. I., p. 51; see also “Catalogue,” P' y.j

his collection, seems to have had ^ n t as to the propriety of referring all the foliagednbsp;the one described above to Calamitesnbsp;^ere is no reason to doubt the specific identitynbsp;to d^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^Sr'^’^ed fossils, and the only question open

nssion is the larger one: “ Do the stems in question

belong to Calamites at all?” Professor Schimpee, of Strasburg, would merge the species nodosus into cannce-formis. Professor W. C. Williamson would as certainlynbsp;place both stem and foliage under Asteropliyllites^ on thenbsp;ground of his very beautiful investigations on the detailednbsp;internal structure of Asterophyllitic. specimens in whichnbsp;that structure is visible. Principal Dawson, of Canada,nbsp;another great authority, entirely agrees with Professornbsp;Williamson, in admitting no connexion between foliagenbsp;such as is shown in the “ Fossil Flora” specimen, jand ’nbsp;true Calamitean stems.

In the fossils now in question, however, no internal structure can be studied, and we have thought it more innbsp;accordance with the object of this publication to retain,nbsp;as far as possible, the names which the authors of thenbsp;“ Flora” undoubtedly intended to associate with thenbsp;drawings which are now reproduced.

Dr. Lindley writes thus to Hutton respecting this plant;—“ Phis, I suppose, must be called Calamitesnbsp;nodosus (see Plates XV. and XVI.), but it appears to me anbsp;little between that fossil and Asterophyllites tuberculata^nbsp;Plate XIV. . . .” (Hutton MSS.)

The specimen comes from a light-brown shale at Low Moor, in Yorkshire, a locality from which manynbsp;of Hutton’s finest and most interesting specimens werenbsp;derived.

The drawing, by Mr. T. A. Peioe, is, like the Plate, one-half the natural size.

(For a thorough discussion of the Calamites-Astero-phyllites question, see the papers of Williamson, in the publications of the Royal Society ; those of Careuthees,nbsp;in the Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh;nbsp;Dawson’s “ Report on Fossil Plants of the Lower Car-

Coniferous and Millstone Grit Formations of Canada” Montreal, 1873,—and his ‘‘ Acadian Geology,” 2nd ed.;nbsp;Schimper’s “ Paleontologie Yégétale,” Vols. I. and III.;nbsp;^nd Balfour’s “ Palaeontological Botany,” in which, curiously enough, the Calamitean view is alone developed;

Cyrille Grand’ Eury’s very recent Memoir “ On the Carboniferous Flora of Central France,” 1877, which isnbsp;ihe most recent contribution to the controversy, etc., etc.)

PLATE III.

Calamites nodosus.

Lindl. and Hutt.

The name given is that in the ‘‘ Eossil Elora.” This specimen conld with eq^ual authority he referred tonbsp;AsteropJiyUites, or to Schimpee’s provisional, convenient,nbsp;hut compromising genus Calamocladus. So far asnbsp;external characters are concerned (and of these alonenbsp;we can judge here), it is a Calamarian or Astero-phyllitic stem, with attached Asterophyllitic foliage. Itnbsp;is not the Calamites nodosus of Steeebeeg, hut formsnbsp;one of that large group of leaf-covered branches whichnbsp;ScHiMPEE has brought together under the name Calamocladus longifolius. This Plate forms an instructivenbsp;supplement to the preceding one.

“ The Newcastle coal-field” is the only locality given.

The original specimen and drawing (by Peioe) are twice the size of the Plate.

PLATE IV.

Asterophyllites. Sp.

Tliis specimen is in many respects very like an Equisetites, especially in tlie slieatli-like processes which,nbsp;are discernihle at some of the nodes. The very delicatenbsp;foliage distinguishes it from any of the figured Asterophyllites with which we are acquainted. The namenbsp;under which it is here placed is that given hy Hutton.nbsp;It resembles Beongniakt’s Asterophyllites pygincea, ofnbsp;which there is, however, no description extant.

This elegant fossil was discovered in light brown shale, at Low Moor, Yorkshire.

The figure is very slightly reduced from the original drawing by Peiok.

11

PLATE V.

Asterophyllites tuberculata.

Stebsb. Sp. (?).

Altlioïigli no locality is given with the original draw ing, it is prohahle that the specimen represented camenbsp;from the rich plant-shale above the Bensham seam, anbsp;Jarrow.

It is an Asterophyllitic stem, in which the nodes are obscurely marked, except on one side, by the leaf-hearingnbsp;hranchlets (as Bindley and Hutton considered them tonbsp;he), or fructification spikes (according to Heinitz andnbsp;Schimpek). It closely resembles the Anmlaria laiifolia ofnbsp;Professor Schimpee, hut according to our rule we havenbsp;placed it under the Lindleyan name.

The drawing, by T. Johnson, is, like the Plate, xgt;ro-hahly of the size of nature, hut we have no means of being certain of this.

13

PLATE VI.

AsterophylUtes. Sp.

The terminal extremity of a leaf-hearing Asterop ^ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

branclilet. In its fragmentary state it won e to attempt to refer it with certainty tonbsp;species. Although apparently allied t ^ Pnbsp;longifolia, yet it seems to he distinct from it, as i snbsp;are shorter and more numerous.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;i

The manner in which the terminal whor s are upwards and squeezed together in this specimen ifenbsp;common in the remains of this group of plants.

Eeferring to this fossil, Hutton remarks, in sen mg

to Hr. Lindley; “ Eather an unsatisfactory specini ... I already possess fragments from w ic i, wnbsp;we get properly to understand it, I have no ^ onnbsp;will he able to make out several species of this interes mgnbsp;genus.” (Hutton HSS.)

The horizon is the shale above theBensham coal-seam, and the locality, Jarrow Colliery.

Hatural size, by Peiok.

15

PLATE VII.

Asterophyllites. Sp.

A very beautiful specimen from tbe roof of tbe Bensbam seam, Jarrow Colliery.

Tbe original drawing, by Prior, is of tbe natural size, tbe reproduction in tbis Plate being reduced one-tbird.nbsp;Tbe remarks made respecting tbe Asteropbyllite innbsp;Plate VI. apply equally well in tbis case. The leaves innbsp;both cases are much more numerous and shorter than innbsp;Asterophyllites longifolia, although, as a whole, tbe plantsnbsp;are nearly allied to that elastic species.

The most important feature in tbis specimen is tbe central stem, tbe form of tbe base of which is wellnbsp;shown. Tbe leaf-bearing branches belong to twonbsp;whorls.

17

PLATE YIII.

AsterophyHites Huttonii.

TMs extremely elegant fragment appears to

an undescribed species of AsterophylUtes. Its mos

^ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;m^oTiAbiet can

stem with slightly prominent nodes, the eaves nearly or quite as long as tire internodes, roa ,nbsp;ceolate, and arranged iir wliorls of four.^

Eo description of this graceful species from re of either Htjttok or Likbley, to whom, the specrmen

communicated in'November, 1835, can now ®

In the meanwhile, perhaps the name AsterophylUes Iluttoiiii may not be thought unsuitable to it.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;i m

The fossil comes, like so many others, from t nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

¦ forming the roof of the Berrshanr coal-seam, a

Colliery. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-p ,

The figure is of the iratural size, and is one of 1 bwk

most graceful delineations.

19

PLATE IX.

Asterophyllites. Sp.

. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;regard to this very curious specimen, Hutton,

m wLose collection it is still to be seen (see “ Catalogue,”

P- 34), remarks, on sending it to Dr. Lindley, “ A, No.

13 [the specimen in question] is probably of this Class L ^'¦lamites]; but I don’t know what to say of the club at

the summit.” (Hutton MSS.)

With all deference to Hutton it would appear that the club,” which gives the fossil its singular appearance, isnbsp;ic terminal whorl of an Asterophyllitic branchlet, thenbsp;eaves of which have closed together like the hairs of anbsp;^et paint-brush, somewhat in the manner shown in thenbsp;ougerdeaved species in Plate VI. Of the lower whorlsnbsp;^t the nodes of the unusually straight stem no trace is tonbsp;e found, and it is possible that the clavate appearancenbsp;of the summit may be due to the presence of fructification concealed by the whorl of short leaves. A specificnbsp;0 ermxnation in this case would be obviously impossible.

, specimen (in two corresponding pieces) was found ^ the shale roof of the Bensham coal-seam, Jarrownbsp;0 hery. It jg q| the same size as the Plate,nbsp;he original drawing is by Prior.

21

PLATE X.

Root and Rootlets.

Hutton, refeiring to tMs specimen, says, in a note to Hr. Lindley ; “ I don’t know what you can make of thisnbsp;singular fossil, wkicli occurs sometimes curiously twisted.

I tkink I may liave sent a specimen before. When magnified the stem appears indistinctly striated, as you maj observe at A and B, Perhaps it is a root.”

From the context it appears that Hutton inclined to the belief that this might be a Calamarian rhyzome.nbsp;Hence its position here. It seems more likely, however,nbsp;to be a portion of a Stigmarian root, with its dependentnbsp;rootlets and sub-rootlets.

The specimen was one of the large number collected at the Felling Colliery, for Hutton, by William Pearson,nbsp;who was for many years master-wasteman in that colliery.nbsp;It is probably (though not certainly) from the High Mainnbsp;shale.

The Plate is reduced one-third from the drawing.

23

PLATE XI.

Cyclopteris (Nephropteris) obliqua.

Brong.

'^wo pinnules differ from those commonly met tonbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^he name Cychpteris in being still adherent

the rachis of what would probably be a species of ^^^''^opieris^ possibly Neiiropteris auriculata. The frondnbsp;^hich these pinnules formed part must have been of

great size.

Tl

name Nephropteru has been conveniently attached Rongkiaet to a very varied assemblage of detachednbsp;Inbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pinnules of this character, the true genus

containing only a few foreign species estab-^g a passage between the Sphenopterids and the

^enropterids.

doubr^^^^^ in the present instance be quite proper, no but ' clenote the specimen figured as Neiiropteris sp.,nbsp;the Huttonian name fwith the qualifyins: Nephropteris)nbsp;^ain

Was ^P^^i^ion figured is of the size represented, and ® found in the Bensham shale, at Jarrow Colliery,nbsp;third ^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;i® Prior. The Plate is reduced one-

25

PLATE XII.

Neuropteris tenuifolia,

(SCHLOTH.) BuONG. (?)

This specimen, one-third larger than in the Plate, is of the few British representatives of this species, if itnbsp;really belong to it. It is more probably a variety ofnbsp;or some closely allied form.

Teyond a note to the effect that it comes from Jarrow, Nothing is known of this handsome example.

The drawing is by Peioe.

27

PLATE XIII.

Neuropteris heterophylla.

Sternb.

Fronds so variable as those belonging to this specific S^onp need more frequent figuring than others. Thenbsp;present example is the more normal form, and closelynbsp;^öseinbles that figured in Plate 200 of the “Fossilnbsp;Flora.” The venation is, however, better shown in thenbsp;Is-tter specimen than in ours.

ScHiMPER inclines to look upon this species, together quot;^ith Neuropteris tenuifolia and Neuropteris Soretii, asnbsp;forming a single group, the passage between each typenbsp;which is imperceptible. They are undoubtedlynbsp;Clearly allied forms. All were large, handsome, perhapsnbsp;Arborescent ferns, of which we now rarely find any butnbsp;®raall detached fragments. (“Paleontologie Végétale,”nbsp;i-, p. 439.)

The drawing, by Prior, and the Plate, are of the Natural size.

The specimen is from the Bensham shale, Jarrow Colliery.

29

PLATE XIV.

Neuropteris heterophylla.

Steenb.

Another, but more uncommon, form of this species, size of specimen is very slightly reduced in thenbsp;^late, which is from a drawing by Prior.

This handsome fragment comes from the shale roof of Bensham coal-seam, Jarrow Colliery.

^ â– 

31

PLATE XV.

Fragment of Neuropterid-Frond (?).

Referring to the drawing, of which this Plate is a faithful copy, Hutton wrote to Dr. Lindley as follows,nbsp;a note dated the 15th November, 1835:—“ A beau-fRul' fern, from the roof of the Bensham coal-seam, innbsp;arrow Colliery, of which this fragment is the only indication I have seen. The impression is on a coarsenbsp;öiieaceous schistus, which has not preserved any othernbsp;’iiarhs of the veining than the drawing represents.”

(Hutton MSS.)

The drawing is by Prior.

33

PLATE XVI.

Pecopteris (Alethopteris) aquilina,

(SCHLOTH.) GOBPP.

It is with some diffidence that, in the absence of the specimen itself, this figure is named thus. In generalnbsp;form it closely resembles the species as figured bynbsp;CHiiipgjj Paleontologie Végétale,” Atlas, Plate 30,nbsp;S- 8), but the details of venation, so far as they can benbsp;^^de out in our drawing, are somewhat different.

The drawing is by Pkiok, and on its margin is a pencil ^ote in Lindley’s handwriting which illustrates the modenbsp;Working followed by the authors of the “Fossilnbsp;^ and which, had it been more closely adhered tonbsp;y Lindley and Hutton, would have much enhancednbsp;. ® ''^alue of these Plates. It runs thus:—“As to Ferns

lli

general—pray compare them carefully with what is %ured in Bkongniaet and the F. F. [‘Fossil Flora’].

me only such as are well preserved aud rtato to you conceive them nearest to approac i.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;' d u o

write the notes upon the drawings, or on paper s uc fEe drawings.”

35

PLATE XVII.

Pecopteris (Alethopteris) marginata.

Goepp.

This Plate aptly supplements Plate 213 of the ‘‘Fossil Tlora.” In the latter a specimen is represented undernbsp;I'lie name Pecopteris marginata, the pinnules of whichnbsp;seem to have been drawn a little together before thenbsp;plant was fixed in the matrix” (“ Fossil Flora,” Vol. III.,nbsp;P- 165). In the present case the plant-fragment is preserved in its natural position, and bears therefore butnbsp;little resemblance in general form to that previouslynbsp;figured.

There is no locality attached to this specimen, but the species is recorded from the shale lying immediatelynbsp;ubove the Bensham seam at Jarrow, whence this examplenbsp;Probably came.

Both drawing (by Peioe) and Plate are of natural size.

87

PLATE XVIII.

Pecopteris, Sp.

The drawing from which this Plate is taken is marked I^ecopteris abhreviata'’’ in Hutton’s handwriting. Tliisnbsp;fern very probably belongs to the very variable groupnbsp;Comprising the species Pecopteris polymorpha and Pecop-teris Miltoni, of which also the type Pecopteris ablreviatanbsp;forms part. The latter variety has never, to our know-fodge, been found in the Northern coal-field, but Pecop-ferfsnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Miltoni is recorded from the High

shale whence the present specimen was obtained at Felling Colliery.

. drawing is by Peiok, and is, like the Plate, of the of nature.

^^^Heferring to this example is a note by Dr. Lindley:— f'oo vague for determination.” (Hutton MSS.)

39

PLATE XIX.

Sphenopteris macilenta.

Lihdl. and Hutt. Var.

fragment seems to approach nearest to this species, ^hich is, however, a rare one in the North of England.

The locality is Jarrow, and the horizon is the shale ^bove the Bensham seam.

El*

rom the notes which have been preserved it appears ^^at the authors of the “ Fossil Flora” intended to attachnbsp;^ new name to this example.

Natural size, original drawing by Prior.

41

PLATE XX.

Pecopteris (Cyatheides) arborescens,

Brokg.

To this specific group, variable and elastic as it is, we refer this interesting specimen, which illustrates in anbsp;peculiarly obvious manner the great uncertainty whichnbsp;must always attend any serious attempt to follow a trulynbsp;natural classification with regard to mere detached fragments of fern-fronds. Here we have fortunately preserved for us a sudden modification of pinnules whichnbsp;gives rise in the same plant to a diversity which, in lessnbsp;happily conditioned remains, would inevitably lead tonbsp;the assumption that we had two species to deal with.

With all hut some very marked and constant species, nothing can he done heyond reference to some group ofnbsp;forms, with which a more or less close alliance can henbsp;claimed.

The Pecopterids are perhaps more open to remarks of this kind than other Orders. ‘‘ The natural classificationnbsp;cf these fossils,” says Schimpee, “ often so imperfect, presents difficulties against which all endeavours in thisnbsp;direction have hitherto failed.” (“ Paléontologienbsp;Végékle,” Vol. I., p. 498).

The drawing is by Peioe, and is of the size of nature.

The specimen comes from the shale roof of the ffensham coal-seam, Jarrow Colliery.

43

PLATE XXI.

Pecopterls (Cyatheides) oreopteridia.

Beong.

This small fragment of a frond of great size differs in some respects from the tj^pical form of this species,nbsp;with which, however, it agrees in essential particulars.nbsp;It was found in the Bensham shale, Jarrow Collieiy.

The Plate and drawing (by Peioe) are of the natural size.

45

PLATE XXII.

Pecopteris (Alethopteris) serra(?).

Lindl. and Hutt.

This elegant fern seems to hold a position midway between the type above named and Pecopteris Serliinbsp;(Brong.) The gronp which embraces these types is anbsp;sufficiently distinct one in itself, but the forms composing it are very difficult to separate, since they pass almostnbsp;imperceptibly from one to the other by very minute gradations. In this specimen the number of lobes is muchnbsp;smaller than on the pinnules of the Pecopteris serra figurednbsp;iu the “Fossil Flora,” and the lobes are marginallynbsp;entire.

The fossil was found in the shale associated with the High Main coal in Felling Colliery.

The drawing is by Prior, and is, as well as the Plate, ef the natural size.

47

PLATE XXIII.

Pecopteris serra(?).

Lindl, and Hftt.

This example belongs to the same group as the last (Plate XXII.) from which it differs in more closelynbsp;appoximating to the Pecopteris serra type. The lobes arenbsp;more strongly serrated than in the figured specimennbsp;already referred to Fossil Flora,” Plate 107).

The original drawing is inscribed in pencil (by Hutton?) ‘‘ Pecopteris Silesiaca the narrow rachis, however, sufficiently separates it from that form, to whichnbsp;otherwise it bears considerable resemblance.

The specimen comes from the shale above the Bensham seam, Jarrow Collierv.

Drawing (by Prior) and Plate are of the natural size.

49

PLATE XXIV.

Pecopteris (Alethopteris) lonchitidis.

Stbenb.

(Pecopteris heterophylla.)

Lindl. and Hutt.

A remarkably fine specimen of this elegant fern. Here the ordinary characters of the species (which is a verynbsp;common one) are found at the extremity of the pinnanbsp;only. The rest presents many points of similarity withnbsp;Pecopteris dentata although the lobes of the pinnules arenbsp;quite entire. The species should be compared also withnbsp;Pecopteris Gloclceri (Goepp.) and with Pecopteris Serlii^nbsp;through which it is allied to the group referred to in connexion with Plates XXII. and XXIII.

The autotype is about two-thirds of the original draw-ing (by Prior) which is of the natural size.

This beautiful fossil came from the shale roof of the Bensham seam, J arrow Colliery.

51

PLATE XXV.

Pecopteris pennaeformis.

Brong.

Another species of the same general character as the three last. Closely allied to Pecopteris dentata this formnbsp;appears to differ from it, as the authors of the “Fossilnbsp;Flora ” remark, solely almost in the absence of crenellingnbsp;of the lobes.

This specimen is also from the Bensham shale in Jarrow Colliery.

The drawing (by Peioe) and the Plate are both of the natural size.

o3

PLATE XXVI.

Pecopteris Silesiaca.

Goepp. Var.

This specimen is nearly akin to the type-form of this species, from which it’differs principally in the spacingnbsp;of the lohes, which is greater than in Goeppeet’s figurenbsp;(‘‘Sytema Filicum Fossilium,” Plate 27). It is alsonbsp;allied, but more distantly, to Pecopteris oxyphilla of thenbsp;same author.

The fern, of which this is a mere fragment, must have heen of very large size, since the drawing (hy Peioe) isnbsp;one-half the size of nature, whilst the figure in the Platenbsp;is one-third smaller than in the drawing.

N.B.—The words “half natural size” in the Plate apply to the original drawing only.

The fossil comes from the Bensham shale, Jarrow Colliery.

55

PLATE XXVII.

Neuropteris. Sp.

Unfortunately no notes are to be found by means of which the history of this very beautiful specimen can benbsp;traced. It is called Pecopteris on the original drawing,nbsp;but the manner in which the lobes are attached to the midrib, and the angles at which the nervures spring from it,nbsp;give the frond an essentially Neuropterid character. Thenbsp;heterophyllous nature of the plant is remarkably wellnbsp;shown.

The locality and horizon are both unknown.

cc^.

57

PLATE XXVIII.

Sphenopteris. Sp.

A most elegant Splienopterid fern, allied to, but quite distinct from, Sphenopteris ohovata. Tbe specimen is,nbsp;unfortunately, not to be found. It probably came fromnbsp;the Scarborough Oolites.

The drawing is by T. Johnson.

The extreme difficulty of specific determination with regard to the beautiful fronds which form the so-callednbsp;genus Sphenopteris^ is too generally admitted to neednbsp;enlarging on here. The almost endless variety of forms,nbsp;which there is yet good reason to believe belong tonbsp;identical groups within the genus, affords a too amplenbsp;field to the nomenclator, and commands caution in proposing new specific names.

59

PLATE XXIX.

Pecopteris laciniata.

Lindl. and Hutt.

(Pecopteris [Alethopteris] muricata.)

Gobpp.

In many respects this fern is strikingly Sphenop-teridian in form, a fact which may account for the name attached to the original drawing—Sphenopteris macilenta.nbsp;The venation is well seen in this specimen, an importantnbsp;character which was entirely absent in that figured in thenbsp;‘‘Fossil Flora,” Plate 122. The unusually acute anglenbsp;at which the veins spring from the mid-ribs of the lobesnbsp;is particularly well-shown here.

This fossil was found in the Bensham shale in Jarrow Colliery.

Drawing (by Prior) and Plate are both of the natural size.

61

PLATE XXX.

Sphenopteris latifolia.

Beong. Yar.

A handsome form of this variable species.

The specimen comes from the Bensham shale in Jarrow Colliery.

The drawing, by Peiok, is one-third of the natural size, as marked in our Plate, which is two-ninths of thenbsp;natural size.

68

PLATE XXXI.

Sphenopteris latifolia.

Brong. Var.

Another, but very different variety of this species. In the absence of venation little need be said respecting thisnbsp;specimen, which, like the last, comes from the shale roofnbsp;of the Bensham seam, Jarrow Colliery.

The drawing is by Peioe, and is, like our figure, of the natural size.

The Pecopteridian affinities (as to form) of this variety will he readily observed.

65

PLATE XXXII.

Sphenopteris linearis.

Steenb. Yar.

This pretty fern appears to hold an intermediate position between the typical form of this species and the Sphenopteris obovata of the “Fossil Flora,” Plate 109nbsp;(= Adiantides micropliyllus (Groepp.), a Cyclopterid form).nbsp;The lobes are, in the present case, in nowise wedge-shaped, but the absence of the details of venation precludes detailed description.

The drawing (by Peiok) and the Plate are of the natural size.

The specimen comes from the Bensham shale, Jarrow Colliery.

67

PLATE XXXIII.

Sphenopteris (Eremopteris) artemisisefolia (?),

(Steknb.) Sch. Var.

It is with much doubt that this remarkable specimen is referred to this group—one which includes forms sonbsp;delicate as Sphenopteris crithmifolia of Lindley andnbsp;Hutton, and others, more like the present one, such asnbsp;Sphenopteris stricta of Sternberg.

One of the authors of the ‘‘Fossil Flora,” in a pencil note, seems to hint that this may possibly be the impression of an alga.

This and the three following Plates are from drawings Mr. T. W. Embleton. The specimens representednbsp;came from the shale forming the roof of the High Mainnbsp;at Fawdon Colliery.

69

PLATE XXXIV.

Sphenopteris. Sp.

This fossil also came from Fawdon Colliery, and from file same horizon as the last.

The Plate is reduced one-third from the original drawing by Mr. Embleton.

71

PLATE XXXV

Sphenopteris. Sp.

Probably the same as the last. (See remarks in the description of Plate XXXIII.)

Both Plate and drawing are of the same size, and the latter is signed with Mr. Embleton’s monogram.

Also from Fawdon Colliery.

78

PLATE XXXVI.

Sphenopteris, Sp.

This plant is as curious and as unsatisfactory as the thr('e last. (See the remarks made with reference tonbsp;Plate XXXIII.)

From Fawdon Colliery.

Drawing and Plate are of the same size; the former is by Mr. Embleton.

(O

PLATE XXXVII.

Sphenopteris alciphylla.

Phill. ms.

Nothing need be added to the following letter of the late Professor John Phillips, the first part of whichnbsp;relates to this fossil. The rest will he welcome, it isnbsp;thought, to all connected with Newcastle-on-Tyne, ornbsp;interested in the British Association:—

Yoek, 2Qth April, 1887.

My Dear Hutton,

I think it probable that the little favourite fossil plant, of which I send a drawing and enlargement [our Plate is a fac-simile of thisnbsp;original drawing by Professor Phillips], will win your affection, andnbsp;cause Lindley no trouble. The specimen w'as found in sinking a Pit onnbsp;the North-west side of the Eiver Lune, near Oughton, in the series ofnbsp;Millstone Grit Rocks, near a thin bed of coal, worked to some considerablenbsp;extent, on the Eiver Lune. With this Coal, which corresponds to thatnbsp;of Tan Hill, Pea Hill, Colsterdale, Penyghent, amp;c., as described innbsp;lay work on the geology of Yorkshire, Vol. 2, occur Lepidodendron,nbsp;Stigmaria, traces of ferns, Calamites, etc. At some distance above it arenbsp;Goniatites, Posidonise, and many other marine shells, some Crinoids,nbsp;Corals, etc.

The plant lies in a sandy laminated rock, here called Shiver (sandy shale); its substance is coal; the state of Conservation admirable. Itsnbsp;structure, etc., will be fully apparent to you from the drawing, which isnbsp;of the natural size, and the enlargements. I never like to cause em-barassment on the subject of names, else I might propose for the plantnbsp;the specific name of Alciphylla, from the odd resemblance to an elk’s hornnbsp;which the leaf exhibits. It is in the possession of Mr. Webster, ofnbsp;Lancaster, who made the experiments for coal, and is kept by him as anbsp;specimen of the Rocks sunk through, else I should have been allowed tonbsp;transfer it to York.

re

I think the Newcastle Institutions hare an excellent chance of persuading the Association [Professor Phillips was one of the founders and the General Secretary of the British Association for the Advancement ofnbsp;Science] to visit the Tyne, either next year or very soon, because of thenbsp;excellent spirit in wdiich the deputations from the Lit. and N. H. Societynbsp;[Literary and Philosophical and Natural History Societies] have urgednbsp;and withdrawn their invitations—urged respectfully and withdrawn verynbsp;generously, to save awkward discussions. I think you must be on thenbsp;alert, to gain the next visit. You must assure the Committee, at Liverpool, of the good extent of your apartments, their contiguity, etc. Asnbsp;many as seven sectional rooms, holding in seats from 150 to 450 membersnbsp;each, seven committee rooms adjacent, general evening conversationnbsp;parties, the General Committee, Council, reception rooms, etc., must benbsp;also provided for (ahleast twenty in all).

As to money, I hope the expenses of the visits may be gradually reduced to the compass of a philosopher’s wishes. At present it is anbsp;serious cost to the town which entertains; but on this, if you want anynbsp;hints, I will send to yon further. The apartments are the essentialnbsp;desiderata.

Ever yours most truly,

(Signed) JOHN PHILLIPS.

(Hutton MSS.)

One of the magniiled portions shows the exterior of the dorsal face of the rachis wrinkled and longitudinallynbsp;striated, whilst the larger of the magnified lobes showsnbsp;the strim of neuration on the anterior face.

The specimen was found at a depth of twenty yards in the Wegber Pit, in the locality above mentioned.

77

PLATE XXXVIII.

Sphenopteris quinqueloba,

Phill.

Var. arbuscula.

This specimen is thus referred to by Professor W. C. Williamson, F.R.S. :—

April 21th, 1837.

No. 3 is one of the most elegant little ferns I have yet seen on the Yorkshire coast. Its hi-pinnated character and the form of its pinnulesnbsp;and leaflets are better understood by the drawing [by Professornbsp;Williamson himself, and the one reproduced in our Plate] than by mynbsp;description. The arrangement of its nerves is very indistinct, all I havenbsp;heen enabled to distinguish being those in the centres of the little roundednbsp;leaflets. It is from the productive deposit at Gristhorpe Pay. This doesnbsp;Hot belong to the Upper Sandstone, as at first supposed by Professornbsp;Phillips, neither is it an upthrow of the Lower Sandstone, as oncenbsp;supposed by my father (see your second Volume),* but is a local deposit,nbsp;distinctly enclosed betw'een the upper and lower beds of the Bath Oolite.nbsp;(See last number ot Proceedings of Geol. Soc, of London.)f From thenbsp;discovery of minute Entomostraca by Mr. Bean, it appears to have beennbsp;u fresh water deposit—most probably estuarian.

(Hutton MSS.)

* *• Fossil Flora,” Vol. II. t Geol. Soc. Proc., Vol. II. (1833-1838).

79

PLATE XXXIX

Sphenopteris. 8p.

A variety belonging to the elegant group of linear ferns, of which Sphenopteris affinis and Sphenopteris linearisnbsp;niay be regarded as the type. It is in some respectsnbsp;not unlike Sphenopteris arguta (“Fossil Flora,” Platenbsp;CLXVIII.) We have unfortunately no information ofnbsp;any kind respecting this beautiful specimen.

Probably from Yorkshire.

The Plate is reduced one-fourtli of the original drawing.

81

PLATE XL.

Pecopteris. Sp.

liaye no information respecting this specimen.

The original drawing by Prior (presumably of the ^^tui’a! size) is twice the size of our Plate.

^ pencil note on the back of the drawing gives the generic name Steffensia. This is an obvious mistake,nbsp;^lowever. The fronds figured are in some respects verynbsp;^ike Pecopteris ohtusifolia, Murray (“Fossil Flora,” Plate

CLVlli.)

-^1

83

PLATE XLI.

Sphenopteris. Sp.

We much regret haviug no information concerning this interesting specimen. It is apparently a most abnormal form of Sphenopterid in many respects resemblingnbsp;the linear ferns Avhich form so important a group of thatnbsp;assemblage, hut in others it seems to claim relationshipnbsp;with Stenopteris. In general form, again, it can claimnbsp;alliance with the Moravian Kulm fern, the Pecopterisnbsp;divaricata of GtCEPPEET.

The drawing is by T. Johnson.

85

PLATES XLII. AND XLIII.

Rhacophyllum (?)

These are two renderings of one specimen, one by Johnson and the other by Prior, slightly reduced innbsp;Plate XLIII. They differ so materially that, in thenbsp;absence of the specimen itself, it has been thought bestnbsp;lo autotype both. Judging by the almost perfectnbsp;and unfailing accuracy in essentials which characterizesnbsp;Prior’s drawings in general, we prefer to base ournbsp;remarks on Plate XLIII. The portion of Calamite stemnbsp;quot;which is omitted in the other Plate need not be enlargednbsp;Rpon, unless, as is possible, it formed the surface onnbsp;which the supposed parasitic Rhacophyllum grew. It isnbsp;with the utmost diffidence that any name is assigned tonbsp;fffe plant-remains here represented, chiefly to call attention to the likeness which the upper left-hand portionnbsp;Rt least bears to Rhacophyllum flahellatum of Sternberg.

87

PLATE XLIV.

(?)

Another very vague specimen which Lindley declined to name, his memorandum respecting it being:—“toonbsp;imperfect.” The drawing was, nevertheless, intendednbsp;for publication. It came from the Bensham coal-seamnbsp;horizon, Jarrow Colliery.

Our figure is slightly reduced from that of the original drawing by Pkioe.

• A

\

gt;

/ \

89

PLATE XLV.

Spiropteris.

SCHIMPEE.

Under this general name the few Plates showing fossil ferns in vernation can be conveniently grouped. It isnbsp;obviously impossible, in the great majority of cases, tonbsp;even attempt the specific determination of immaturenbsp;fragments of this kind. The present is a beautifulnbsp;example of the kind, tbe original being one-fiftli largernbsp;than our figure. This is perhaps a Sphenopterid formnbsp;in vernation.

The drawing, by Peioe, is one of that artist’s happiest delineations, and is scarcely done justice to in our autotype, although, of course, every detail is faithfullynbsp;reproduced.

The specimen comes from the Newcastle coal-field, no further details as to locality and horizon being forthcoming.

91

PLATE XLVI

Spiropteris-

SCHIMPER.

Another beautiful specimen of circinate vernation, this time probably in a Pecopterid fern.

The drawing is by Prior, but no further information beyond the fact that the specimen comes from thenbsp;Bensham seam horizon, at Jarrow Colliery, is to benbsp;found respecting it.

93

PLATE XLVII,

Spiropterls (?)

SCHIMPEE.

A very puzzling specimen. Probably another form of circinate vernation, but the impression is too imperfectnbsp;as to details to enable anything but the general aspect ofnbsp;the plant being seen. Hutton himself could assign it nonbsp;name, and sent one side of the fossil to He. Lindlev,nbsp;together with the drawing, “that you may have a betternbsp;guess what this is.” Lindley, however, returned thenbsp;drawing marked with a query.

The specimen is an impression “ in shale from Jarrow Colliery.”

The drawing, by Pkiob, is of the natural size, and so is the Plate.

95

PLATE XLVIII.

Fern Stem,

Probably the basal portion, or root extremity, of a fern.

The drawing, by Prior, is taken from a specimen found in the Bensham shale, Jarrow Colliery. Ournbsp;figure is of the natural size.

97

PLATE XLIX

Fern Stem.

This stem has a very Sigillarian appearance, but it is more probably a fern stem somewhat allied to thenbsp;smoother forms of the Triassic pseudo-genus Chelepferisnbsp;of CoKDA. The spiral arrangement of the scars is wellnbsp;known.

Our Plate is reduced one-fourth from Prior’s drawing.

The locality is not known.

99

PLATE L.

Sigillaria reniformis.

Beong. Var.

The drawing of which our Plate is a slight reduction is named thus, in pencil, by Hutton ; hut although thenbsp;specimen (an unharked one) hears much resemblance innbsp;some respects to that species, yet, in the form of thenbsp;scars and in their much more marked alternation, itnbsp;differs obviously from the types figured in the “ Fossilnbsp;Flora” (Plates LVII. and LXXI.)

The following note is all the information we have with regard to this specimen :—Scars in relief—Bolton.”

The drawing is by Peioe.

101

PLATE LI.

Sigillaria. Sp.

The figure is about one-eighth of the natural size, and shows a good example of the casts of Sigillarian trees,nbsp;which are common in the Carboniferous Sandstones ofnbsp;the North of England.

The locality of this particular specimen is not given.

The original drawing (one-fifth of the natural size) is by Pkioe.

103

PLATE LII.

Lepidophyllum binerve.

Hutton MS.

An nndescribed leaf of Lepidodendron, well defined and easily distinguished from Lepidophyllum majus,nbsp;intermedium, and acuminatum (= Lepidophyllum trinervenbsp;Lindley and Hutton, “ Fossil Flora,” Plate CLII.) bynbsp;the two broad longitudinal nervures and the indistinctness or apparent absence of midrib.

This fossil is especially interesting, since it approaches very near to certain Sigillarian leaves. Compare, fornbsp;instance, with the leaves of Sigillaria, figured in Platenbsp;XLIII. of the “ Fossil Flora” (Figs. 1 and 2), under thenbsp;name Cyperites Mcarinata.

The specimen represented came from Bolton.

The drawing, by Priob, and our figure, are of the natural size.

105

PLATE LUI.

Lepidophyllum lanceolatum.

Lindl. and Hutt,

A large specimen of this so-called species, nearly allied to Lepidophyllum majus of Beongniaet.

The specimen (of the size represented) came from the Bensham coal shale, Jarrow Colliery.

i.

t:

107

PLATES LIV., LV., and LVI.

Lepidodendroid strobili.

The three cones or Lepidostroli figured in these Plates form part of a series illustrated by the late Mr. H. Denny,nbsp;a well-known Yorkshire naturalist. Beyond these drawingsnbsp;we have no information respecting the specimens, but asnbsp;we have hope of finding the notes wliich evidently accompanied the drawings (they are numbered for reference)nbsp;among some more of the late Mr. Hutton’s papers, wenbsp;will witldiold any remarks on these fossils for the present.

109

PLATE LVII.

Cryptomerites divaricatus.

Phill.

This specimen is thus referred to by Professor W. C. Williamson, F.R.S. :—

April 21th, 1837.

No. 1 [the upper figure] is a very peculiar little plant of which I have only had two specimens: it appears to have been of a semi-succulentnbsp;nature, but being preserved in a gray granular ironstone its more minutenbsp;characters are ill-defined. At first sight it resembles Lycopodites, butnbsp;its more regular pinnated form and the thick and distinct stem and rachisnbsp;distinguish it. The central stem has evidently not been smooth, but anbsp;scaly character, though from the change the plant has undergone thesenbsp;scales present no distinct form. The small pinnules branch irregularlynbsp;from the rachis, sometimes opposite or sometimes alternating, but thenbsp;little leaflets are generally alternate, and these are arranged in a similarnbsp;manner though less distinctly on either side of the rachis. They are fromnbsp;a seam of ironstone in the Upper Sandstone of Phillips, a few miles northnbsp;of Scarborough. No. 2 [the lower figure] is a magnified pinnule.

(Hutton MSS.)

Ill

PLATE LVIII.

A Cycad.

This Plate is a reproduction of another drawing by Mr. Denny, and forms part of the series mentionednbsp;with reference to Plates LIV., LV., and LVII. Thenbsp;observations there made apply equally to this figure.

i

113

PLATE LIX

Rootlets.

In this Plate and the three following ones we have excellent examples of some of those numerous ambiguousnbsp;plant-remains which have afforded such a wide field fornbsp;the ingenuity of descrihers. Whether they be roots ornbsp;rootlets, and if so of what plants, or whether they benbsp;algoid growths, are questions which, in the fragmentarynbsp;state of most of the specimens of the kind, and in thenbsp;absence of any details of structure, cannot be decided.

In the present case there is little reason to doubt that we have rootlets to deal with.

The drawing, by Pbioe, and our figure, are of the natural size.

The specimen comes from the Bensham coal shale, in Jarrow Colliery.

115

P L A T E LX,

Rootlets.

A much more delicately ramified specimen than the last. Something very like it is to he seen at the lowernbsp;left hand corner of the slab figured in Plate XLIII., andnbsp;indeed examples of this kind are frequently met with innbsp;coal shales, although seldom so perfect as this one.

The drawing and the Plate are both of the natural size; the former is by Peioe.

This fossil was found in the shale above the High Main coal, in Felling Colliery.

117

PLATE LXI.

Root (?)

A very obscure specimen, from the Bensham coal shale, at Jarrow Colliery. Probably of the same naturenbsp;as the two last.

The original drawing, by Prior, is of the natural size, and slightly larger than our figure.

119

PLATE LXII.

Root.

This closely resembles the Myriophyllites gracilis of Aetis, which is figured in Plate CX. of the ‘‘ Fossilnbsp;Flora” as ‘‘ a fossil aquatic rpot.” Nothing need benbsp;added to the description there giyen of these problematical remains. (“ Fossil Flora,” Vol. II., p. 77, etc.)

Like the specimen above referred to, this one comes from the Low Main horizon of Felling Colliery.

Plate and drawing are of the natural size, the latter is by Peioe.

121

PLATE LXIII.

Root (?)

If this be indeed a root, as Hutton supposed, it is certainly of a very different character from either ofnbsp;the three last figured specimens. There is a certainnbsp;symmetry about the embranchments, and a certainnbsp;leaf-like form about the filaments, that might make onenbsp;doubt the reference. On the other hand, it is difficult tonbsp;say to what other department of vegetable organizationnbsp;it may belong, especially as no signs of structure arenbsp;visible.

The figure is about one-third smaller than the original drawing by Peior, which was of the natural size.

‘‘ The Newcastle coal-field” is all the locality given.

123

PLATE LXIV.

Calamites.

A remarkable confused mass of broken calamarian stems, being a small portion of a continuous bed or band ofnbsp;the same nature. It affords an excellent insight into thenbsp;profuse occurrence of these plants, and the manner innbsp;which they assisted in the formation of coal—probablynbsp;more than any other plants.

An instructive specimen, twice the size of our figure, from the Newcastle coal-field.

The drawing is by Peior.

APPENDIX.

The following is a selection from a number of letters forming part of the “ Hutton MSS.” Some of themnbsp;referring to drawings or specimens which are not to benbsp;found may be to some extent iinintelligible, but they arenbsp;printed here in the hope that their publication may causenbsp;the discovery of such missing drawings or fossils.

Letters from the late Prof. John Phillips, F.R.S., etc.

I.

(No date.)

Mt dear Hutton,—As to these Stone Plants (fossilized Hazle), I have intended to send you another bit, and will do so if you write tonbsp;say again and want it. Pray let this little yegetable beauty, from Wray,nbsp;in Lancashire, out of shale full of Posidonia, Goniates, etc., be figured;nbsp;and if Lindley can prove it to be distinct from a young broom, or something of that sort, let it be so. I think it to be the greatest curiosity Inbsp;ever saw from the Millstone Grit series. Pray return ’it very safely. Whynbsp;do you talk of ending your Fossil Plants ? Johnston is going else Inbsp;would add more.

Ever yours, etc.,

(Signed) John Phillips.

II.

Remarks on Fite Drawings of Fossil Plants, by John Phillips, F.R.S., etc.

(No date.)

1.—These are all drawn by myself from specimens which I have examined carefuUy, in the collections of my friends or in my own cabinet. The drawings are all of the natural size.

J

126

A. —This is the plaster cast of a fossil stem from Oamerton Colliery,nbsp;in Somersetshire, where the specimen was, I believe, found in the yearnbsp;1800. It was, I think, in the possession of the late 0. J. Harford, Esq.,nbsp;a friend of the late Rev. J. Townsend, of Pewsey (author of a well-knownnbsp;geological work embodying many of Mr. Wm. Smith’s early views), and

of the late Rev. — Benjamin, of Farley, in whose collection.....

It was given to me by . nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;. [A large portion of the letter is here

cut out, and no drawing corresponding to this description can be found.]

B. —Also from the Somersetshire coal-field. I have never seen anothernbsp;specimen. This is in the collection of Thomas Meade, Esq., of Chatleynbsp;Lodge, near Bath. The plant lies in the centre of a large flattenednbsp;round module of ironstone, and is represented as to substance by a thinnbsp;scaly bituminous coal. The structure was copied faithfully, but it is supposed that more of the fine venation of the leaves might have been discovered by longer examination. Each leaf has a midrib of great regularitynbsp;and parallel fine veins. The leaves appear to have been verticillate in twonbsp;rows, like a double flower, and to have supported in the centre a tumidnbsp;portion, giving the notion of a convex receptacle, of which the surface isnbsp;granulated, or rather marked with many curved lines. [The drawingnbsp;thus described is fortunately preserved. Here the portion of the letternbsp;already mentioned as being cut out again interferes with the sequence.]

C. —Is the internal portion, rather flattened, with articulations at unequal distances, furrows of slight depth, the intervening spaces slightlynbsp;convex, and no ramuscular impressions. The vertieillar belt of cicatricesnbsp;of branches presents oblong approximate concave impressions, with somenbsp;dubious traces of central structure.

D. —Is the external impression, with the cicatrices of branches convex,nbsp;and the longitudinal sulci, less distinct, near them. [C and D refer tonbsp;Calamites verttcUJatus, the drawing marked C being figured as Platenbsp;OXXXIX. of the “Fossil Flora,” at p. 159 (Vol. II.), of w'hich will benbsp;found quoted the missing passage in this letter. The drawing D is preserved, but has not been published. It is dated April 13, 1828.]

I may take this opportunity of noticing that the occurrence of Calamites, Sigillaria, and Lepidodendra in sandstone rocks is common in the Yorkshire coal-field, through most parts of the series; that is to say,nbsp;through a thickness of 1,000 yards. It does not appear at present thatnbsp;the different species can be assigned to different parts of the series, butnbsp;on this subject we have much to learn. Some of the species occur in thenbsp;sedimentary rocks associated with the Momitain Limestone, as do alsonbsp;Stigmaria, Sternbergia, and several Lepidodendra.

127

E.—The structure in this specimen appears to me better exhibited than in any which I have ever seen. It is from Somersetshire, and is innbsp;my cabinet. [This drawing is missing.]

(Signed) J. Phillips.

As a P.S. comes the following :—

Dear Hutton,—I have written as you wished my remarks on my drawings, and hope they may be of use. But I have scrawled {currentsnbsp;calamo as befits one who writes concerning Calamites), and you mustnbsp;round sentences or rub them out as you may find most convenient. Inbsp;have some other odd tilings in your line at home.

J. P.

III.

The following letter is endorsed ‘‘unintelligible,” by

Hutton :—

Buxton, 21th June, 1836.

My dear Hutton,—I have found, or rather my sister, to-day in the midst of the great mass of Derbyshire Limestone—which corresponds tonbsp;the lower portion of the Mountain Limestone series of Yorkshire—somenbsp;interesting specimens of marine plants which, perhaps, may be worthy ofnbsp;notice in one of the forthcoming parts of the “Fossil Flora.” You know Inbsp;have been always on the look out for marine plants, because this is precisely the part of fossil botany which appears to me the least explored.nbsp;And it is probable that we shah find yet a considerable number of themnbsp;in the marine calcareous strata, which yield so few land plants. I therefore make no apology for sending you very careful drawings of the bestnbsp;portions, with some remarks. [Here come full detailed referencesnbsp;which it would be useless to print without the drawing. The latter isnbsp;carefully preserved. He goes on :]—The plants I suppose to be marine,nbsp;notwithstanding, the aspect of [Nos.] five and six. They lie in smoky,nbsp;laminated limestone, holding Producta Martini, and in the midst ofnbsp;much more massive beds of light grey, compact limestone, only partiallynbsp;crinoidal and shelly.

Yours, etc.,

(Signed) J. Phillips.

Here follows a P.S. on personal matters which we omit.

128

IV.

This letter will be found printed in full at p. 75, in the reference to Plate XXXVII.

The next is a note from the late Sir Roderick I. Murchison, Bart., etc.:—

Nuested House, Petebsfield,

March 30th, 1837.

Deae Lixdley,—My chapter on the Clee Hills coal-field is going to the press, and among the plants cited on your authority are three species ofnbsp;Sphenopteris, S. crenata, S. zamioides, S, furcata, which I state are to henbsp;figured by you (1834; your MSS.), and yet I cannot find them in thenbsp;“ Fossil Flora.”

You certainly so named the plants, for I have your letter to that effect. Is it that they have been mislaid or forgotten ?

Yours ever,

(Signed) Rod. I. Murchison.

The rest follows as a P.S.

I intended to have gone to Worcester this week, and I therefore requested that the plants of the New Red might not be sent until I sawnbsp;them and selected from them.

Having, however, given up my jommey for the present, intending to go at Whitsuntide, I shall order them up to town.

If there is any one of the species alluded [to] not figured I would request you to name it Sphenopteris Lewisii, after Mr. Lewis, in whose coal-field of Knowlbury they were all found.

Whenever you publish a list of errata, permit me to send you some essential corrections of spelling (Knowlbury among others).

Whose name is Lepidodendron tetragonum ? Is it Sternberg’s ?

I further observe that in this Knowlbury basin, in the Clee HiUs, there are two unpublished Sigillari®, besides the Sphenopteris Murchisoninbsp;—either of these might be named after Mr. Lewis.

If there has been any mistake the original specimens are at the Geological Society.

I shad be in town on Wednesday next.

129

Sphenopteris furcata is figured at Plate CLXXXI., and Bphenofteris crenaia at Plate XXXIX. of the “Fossilnbsp;Flora.” The suggestion of the new specific name Lewisiinbsp;came too late to be acted on, as the issue of the “ Fossilnbsp;Flora” was brought to a close in 1837.

Letters from Professor W. C. Williamson, F.E.S. :—

I.

Scarborough, November 2^th, 1832.

Sir,—I have at length been able to complete the promised drawings, which I hope will he of use to the “British Flora,” as they are on a subject rather different to any you have yet described—the following part ofnbsp;the vegetable kingdom :—

No. 1 is copied from a fragment of a large stem which, when perfect, measured about three feet in length, but owing to its being compressed sonbsp;flat and thin, and to the hard nature of the rock where it was embedded,nbsp;it could not be got out entire. At its top it was about three and a quarternbsp;inches in diameter: it is grooved or sulcated longitudinally, the groovesnbsp;becoming more indistinct as they approach the lower end, which increasednbsp;to about three and a half inches in width. It is divided into joints fromnbsp;four to five inches long at the upper part, but they become shorter as theynbsp;are nearer the root. The leaves, of one of which there is a small fragment shown in the dravdng No. 1, are found crushed and broken innbsp;immense quantities by the side of the stem, but never attached. Mynbsp;father [the late Mr. Williamson, of Scarborough, who died on the 15thnbsp;July, 1877, at the age of ninety-three] has seen them upwards of twonbsp;feet long and neither of the ends perfect. How much longer they maynbsp;have been we cannot say. The Petiole is deeply sulcated longitudinally,nbsp;and is nearly half an inch in width ; it is frequently decomposed, and thenbsp;residuum is a white powder which falls out when exposed to the air. Thenbsp;Folioles are long and pointed, strongly sulcated in the same manner asnbsp;the Petiole to which they are attached by the whole of their base.

The Flower, Fig. 2, is round and bnlky. The petals are long, smooth, and lanceolate, cnrling outwards towards the stalk. From thenbsp;base of the petals to the edge of where the receptacle has been, is deeplynbsp;and irregidarly striated. There is a perforation through the stem where

130

the stalk has been, which fell out in the form of the white powder before mentioned. In the centre is a large cavity formed by the decay of thenbsp;receptacle or calyx.

Fig. 3 is an outline of the specimen, Fig. 1, about the natural size as it lay in the rock when found. The stem, as I mentioned before, wasnbsp;nearly an equal thickness its whole length, convex at the top whence rannbsp;out three small stalks from the centre, with a jierfect flower at the end ofnbsp;each, all which are now in our Museum. They only differ from the onenbsp;I have figured in being much smaller, and have the cavity of the receptacle filled up with nothing in which any character can be observed.

In aU the specimens I have examined I can find no traces of scars or cicatrices. That it has been hollow there is no doubt about, for thenbsp;impression is so thin, and the stone in the interior is exactly the same asnbsp;the rock in which it is embedded. These plants differ from the Palmrnnbsp;(Lindley’s Introduction to Natural History of Botany) in having the flowernbsp;composed of many petals, and having no scars. From Filices in theirnbsp;bearing flowers, and though I have taken all the pains in my power,nbsp;I cannot find any other genus to refer them to, but must leave it to yournbsp;superior judgment.

This singular Plant was found in an Ironstone bed, forming the base of the Lower Sandstone and Shale near Runswick, which frequently fallsnbsp;down in immense masses, containing the vegetables.

I remain, dear Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed) Wm. Williamson.

The above letter is probably one of the earliest contributions of Professor Williamson, to a branch of science which he has since made so thoroughly his own. Thenbsp;drawing is wanting, but the fossils referred to are nonbsp;doubt still to be found in the Scarborough Museum.

II.

Scarborough, Feb. 21 fh, 1835.

My Dear Sir,—I have again sent yon a small assortment of descriptions of our interesting fossil vegetables, of which the most important are what I suppose are parts of Cycadean fructification. These singular

131

remains were some time ago partially brought under your notice, when I sent you a drawing of a collar, or annular assemblage of petal-hke scales,nbsp;with a stem and leaves. The stem, I think you decided, was that of anbsp;calamite, and of the other parts you wished for further illustrations.nbsp;Since then my father and I went to Whitby, expressly to examine thenbsp;locality, and our examination was in some measure crowned with success.nbsp;The first new object we met with was the beautiful impression of a stem,nbsp;with large, smooth, oval cicatrices, regularly disposed, and the interveningnbsp;spaces filled up with rough ridges, evidently impressions of the fissures innbsp;the cortical integuments.* Fearful of not being able to obtain it entire,nbsp;as it was only a hollow impression, and in a dreadfully hard, irony rock,nbsp;I took the drav.dng, a copy of which I have sent you (No. 1.) Thenbsp;upper part was strongly marked with the cortical fissures, as well as thenbsp;bottom; but from my endeavours to take a faithful representation of thenbsp;one, I had not time to complete the other, as we had a considerable distancenbsp;to travel to our destination for the night. It appears to have been a partnbsp;from the centre of a large stem, as there was little or no difference in thenbsp;diameter at the respective ends.

As I foresaw, the most careful efforts of my father’s practised chisel were only able to preserve some fragments of the cicatrices, which are nownbsp;in the Museum.

No. 2 is a small collar,, which we more frequently find than the large ones. They differ in having, as far as I can discover in the specimensnbsp;found, no perforation passing through them, and have not the striatednbsp;interior sent some time ago.

No. 3 is an impression of part of a collar, the scales and stalk of which have been destroyed by exposure to the atmosphere and sea. It showsnbsp;that the form under which we find the collars has not been the perfect one,nbsp;but that the cavity, where the stamens and pistil ought to have been hadnbsp;it been a flow’er, has been filled up with a continuous stalk. The impression of the scales are rather narrow, and closely attached to one anothernbsp;at the base.

No. 4 is a similar impression of scales, but here they have been older, become broader and more widely separated from one another.

No. 5 is a fragment of a frond of immense size, which I think you will find to be a more accurate drawing than the one before sent. The leafletsnbsp;are long and lanceolate, broadest at the middle, or rather towards the

*¦ Eonnd each of the scars there is an irregular strong line, forming a kind of circle. Some smaller ones range transversely and the others longitudinally.

132

base, which is convex. Apex, sharp-pointed. The nerves are numerous, regular, simple, and like most of the Monocotyledons, the greater part ofnbsp;them terminate at the narrow apex, though some few of them havenbsp;formed their little orifices at the margin of the leaflets. The leaflets arenbsp;attached to the upper surface of the stalk, which being partly broken, andnbsp;the interior exposed to view, appears to have been furnished with littlenbsp;protuberances, to which the leaflets has been fixed. These fronds wenbsp;have seen of considerable length, sometimes exceeding three feet.

Such, then, are the fragments from which we have to draw our conclusions concerning this interesting species. The perforation, which passes through the centre of the large “ Collar,” is of the folloning formnbsp;[pen and ink sketch given] when cut transversely. Its widening at bothnbsp;extremities evidently shows that there have been other appendages abovenbsp;as w'ell as below the collar, and that both have been thicker than thenbsp;centre of the perforation, whilst No. 3 shows that the collar has beennbsp;sometimes erect, and not always with the points of the scales turnednbsp;inwards; and No. 4 leads ns to the same conclusion. That the scalynbsp;collar, fronds, and stem have all belonged to the same plant, I thinknbsp;little doubt remains, but the most difficult question is how they have beennbsp;situated with regard to one another, as we have not been able to detectnbsp;anything resembling the portion that has been above the collar.

I think that the opinion advanced by M. Brongniart, that they have been collars round the base of a spike of fructification in some of thenbsp;Cycads, appears the most probable, resembling those figured in Vol. I.,nbsp;Plates XXI., XX., and XXIII., but I have not been able to see thatnbsp;work, and consequently cannot give an opinion, but hope that you willnbsp;be able to come to some conclusion on the subject.

The rest of this interesting letter is, unfortunately, mutilated. The drawings referred to are not all to benbsp;found, hut No. 5 is the one re-produced in Plate CLXV.nbsp;of the ‘‘ Fossil Flora,” under the name Zamia gigas.

III.

Natural History Society’s Hall,

Mauchestee, April 21th, 1837.

Dear Sir,—I herewith send you drawings of what I suppose to be new species of Plants. I kno-w not whether they will reach yon in timenbsp;for the next number of the “ Flora.” In your last letter you express a

133

strong desire to retain the drawings I have supplied you with, since the commencement of the work. This I shall have no objection to allow, ifnbsp;you have any loose sheets of such of them as have been engraved, whichnbsp;you can send me, in which case you can retain the originals in your collection. [This arrangement was, we understand, never carried out onnbsp;Mr. Hutton’s side.]

No. 1 is a very peculiar little Plant.....etc. . .' [This

paragraph is given in full in the reference to our Plate LVII., page 109. This Plate is a reproduction of the drawing described. The nextnbsp;paragraph, describing Drawing No. 3, is in a similar manner given innbsp;the reference to our Plate representing it, Plate XXXVIII., page 77.]

No. 5 is a specimen found whilst pursuing my researches amongst the limestones of the Upper Coal Measures. The long leaf is Neu-ropteris cordata, which you have figured from Buckland’s specimennbsp;[“Fosil Flora,” Plate XLI.] The other I suppose to be a Cyclopteris,nbsp;different from anything I have seen before. The Neuropteris cordata,nbsp;from Leebotwood, is found in connection with some fresh water limestones, of which Bow'man, of Wrexham, has given me specimens,nbsp;containing minute fresh water shells, and also in the same neighbourhoodnbsp;they have, I believe, Megalichthys and other remains of fish. Mynbsp;specimen I found under similar circumstances. At the top of ournbsp;Coal Measures we have a group of fresh water shales and limestones,nbsp;containing Planorbes, Unios, Entomostraca, apparently a Cypris,nbsp;Megalichthys Hibberti, Palseoniscus, Coprolites, and other remains ofnbsp;a larger fish; and between two of the main seams of limestone wasnbsp;a thin shale containing the above specimen, together with Lepido-dendron Sternbergii, Stigmaria ficoides, Calamites, and several othernbsp;coal plants. The shale is very soft, and about the colour I have givennbsp;it in the drawing. See Phil. Magazine, August and September, 1836.nbsp;The geological position of the Leebotwood limestone is nearly the samenbsp;as ours, showing something like a connection between our Lancashirenbsp;and the Shrewsbury coal-field.

I suppose you have not met with any of the fish at Ferry Hill [in the Permian Marl Slate there] I wrote to you about. My friend Professornbsp;Johnstone, of Durham, told me the other day that the workmen are

destroying numbers of them......

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;W. 0. Williamson.

134

From Mr. John Dunn (Vice-President op the Scarborough Philosophical Society).

ScAEBOEOUGH, Sepimter Brd, 1832.

Dear Sir,—The Plant most resembling ïfo. 1 is called by Phillips, Plate VIII., Fig. 8, Pecopteris longifolia, and at page 148 it isnbsp;denominated Pecopteris pancifolia, where it says, “the leaves are nevernbsp;attached.” These leaves are attached by a pedicle in the form of annbsp;umbelle to the stem. The midrib very obvious and lateral nervesnbsp;branching from it ending in dichotomous subdivisions. The leaf is bynbsp;no means so narrow in the centre as Phillips’, nor so long in proportionnbsp;to its width. The two extremities of the leaf are nearly equal.

No. 2 is also attached to the stem, which is thicker than the last. The nerves also proceed from a central rib in a similar manner. Thenbsp;shape of the leaf is very different, being twice the length and, except atnbsp;the extremities, of a more uniform size all the way through.

No. 3 explains pretty nearly itself. The nerves are fine, parallel, longitudinal, about ten or twelve in number. The leaf forms a sort ofnbsp;leafy stalk at the insertion of the stem. They are not opposite. Two herenbsp;and there are comprised together.

The specimen belongs to Mr. Bean, and the drawings were taken by my friend and patient. Miss Helen Thornhill, a lady of high familynbsp;from Derbyshire, now staying here, etc.

Yours sincerely.

JoHn Dumv.

The drawings referred to in tlie above letter are those reproduced in Plate LXIII. of the “ Fossil Flora” undernbsp;the name Glossopteris Phillipsii.

This small selection will be concluded with a letter from the Rev. W. T. Bree, describing the Allesley Fossil Tree ;

Allesley Rectory, *near Coventry,

April 2Wh, 1840.

Dbae Sir,—Herewith I have the pleasure of sending you a lithograph of the Allesley Fossil Tree, the entire production of a self-taught genius,nbsp;our Village Carpenter. You will understand that the tree extended somenbsp;yards further towards the spectator; these portions were removed when

135

the ground was lowered, on which occasion the tree was discovered. The specimen you received from Mrs. Corrie was not from this tree, hut fromnbsp;similar ones, which were found a few hundred yards distant in making anbsp;new turnpike road, and which extended more than the breadth of the road.

Dr. Bucldand made notes on the spot, when he was here a few years ago, with a view to publish some account of the fossil in the Geo. Trans.nbsp;[See Buckland “ On the occurrence of silicified trunks of trees in theNewnbsp;Eed Sandstone at Allesley” (1886), Oeol. Soc. Proceedings,'N(A. II., 1838,nbsp;p. 439.] I have not seen his description, but no doubt it is accurate.nbsp;Besides these fossil trees imbedded in the sandstone, numbers of fragmentsnbsp;are occasionally found in getting gravel, etc., and these latter are for thenbsp;most part of a much firmer and closer textm-e than the fossil trees; andnbsp;accordingly better adapted to the purpose of polishing, I apprehend too,nbsp;that they exhibit the structure of the wood more perfectly. At the samenbsp;time, much as our fossil wood varies in colour and external appearance, Inbsp;believe that it is all of the same kind.

If specimens of the lithographed tree, or any others, are worth your having, I shall be very happy to send them, if you will point outnbsp;the best mode of conveyance. I have also many thin sections on glassnbsp;(and amongst them some fi’om the lithographed tree) which show thenbsp;structure very satisfactorily; these I should be happy to lend you, shouldnbsp;they be of use. [What has become of these ?]

I am collecting fossil woods with some considerable energy; and besides a large collection from this parish, I have numerous fine specimens fromnbsp;the West Indies. Should you at any time have any duplicates to spare,nbsp;from other quarters, I should be greatly obliged to you for them.

Believe me, dear Sir,

Very truly yours,

(Signed) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;W. T. Beeb.

To W. Hutton, Esq.

INDEX OF SPECIES.

138

Lepidophyllum majus ......

L. trimrve

Lepidostrobus sp. (Plates LIV.-LVI.) ...

MyriophyTlites gracilis ......

Nephropteris ............

JSfmropteris auricuïata N. heterophylla (Plates XIII. and XIV.)

N. Soretii

N. sp. (Plates XY., XXVII.) ......

N. tenuifolia (Plate XII.) ......

Pecopteris ailreviata

P. aqnilina (Plate XVI.) ......

P. arborescens (Plate XX.) ......

P. dentala P. divaricata

P. QlocTceri......... ...

P. heterophylla ............

P. laciniata (Plate XXIX.)......

P. loncbitidis (Plate XXIV.) ......

P. longifolia............

P. marginata (Plate XVII.) ......

P. Miltoni ... nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...

P. muricata

P. óbtusifolia .........

P. oreopteridia (Plate XXI.) ......

P. oxypJiylla............

P. paucifoUa ............

P. pennEeformis (Plate XXV.)

P. polymorpha............

P. Serlü ............

P. serra (Pktes XXII., XXIIL, X.) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...

P. Silesiaca (Plate XXVI.) ...

P. sp. (Plates XVIIL, XL.) ......

Khacophyllum ( ?) flabellatum (Plates XLII

Eoots and rootlets (Plates X., LIX.-LXIII.), 21, 111, Sigiïlaria Murchisoni

S. reniformis (Plate L.) nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.............

8. sp. (Plate LI.)... nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...... .........

Sphenopteris affinis ...

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNB: A. HEID, PRINTING COURT BUILDINGS, AK.ENSIDE HILL.

li;-