^{page 194 note 1} There is an admirable specimen showing this condition in the Museum at Owens College.

^{page 194 note 2} Prestwich, Geology of Coalbrook Dale, Geol. Trans, vol. v. part iii. plate 38, fig. 12, and explanation by Prof. Morris.

^{page 194 note 3} A view recently upheld by Nathorst.

^{page 194 note 4} The species described as Palæospathe by linger from the Carboniferous and Permian, may possibly also belong here. A list of them is given in Schimper, Pal. végétnle, vol. ii. p. 505.Google Scholar

^{page 194 note 5} Evolution des Phanérogams, vol. i. p. 231.

^{page 195 note 1} Schimper and Mougeot, Monogr. d. pi. foss. du Grés bigarré, p. 39, pi. xix. xx.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 2} Flora foss. forma, oolithicse, i.–iv.

^{page 195 note 3} Pal. végétale, vol. ii. p. 427.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 4} A closed bud is apparently figured as a nut, pi. iii. fig. 7.

^{page 195 note 5} Linn. Trans, p. 663, pis. 32 and 53.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 1} Dr. Newberry describes a number of helianthoid flowers which he calls Palæcanthus, from the Cretaceous Amboy Clays, which are three to four inches in diameter and greatly resemble Williamsnnia. He remarks that though “so much like flowers of Composite, we are not yet warranted in asserting that such is their character,” Bull. Torrey Botanical Club, vof. xiii. p. 37, 1886.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} The cup is described by Saporta and Marion, Evolution des Phanérog. vol. i. p. 240, as a large cup or bell-shaped expansion with fringed or lobed margin, composed of coriaceous and fibrous tissue, comparable to the spongy apex of the fleshy spadix of Amorphophallus, and more remotely with the tuft of leaves crowning the Pine-apple.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} Saporta has an exhaustive treatise on the subject in the press, which will be superbly illustrated, in which he intends to demonstrate the absolute identity of Williamsonia with Podocarya.

^{page 198 note 1} Feistmantel lays great stress on their occurrence in the rocks of the Eajmahal group as supporting his view that they are of Jurassic age. There are two species besides the one considered identical with the Yorkshire W. gigas, Pal. Indica, Flora of Each, p. 73, 1876.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Williamson, , On some Anomalous Oolitic and Palaeozoic Forms of Vegetation, Proc. Roy. Institution of Great Britain, Feb. 16, 1883.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 3} Saporta writes to me under date April 2nd, 1886, regarding this fossil:—” Je crois bien que c'est un veritable Williaiuaonia, mais écrasé et raeconnaissable et je n'ose pas le décrire dans l'état où il est, ne sachant même si ce ne serait pas quelque type spécial.” It appears, however, that it is to be figured in a forthcoming work.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 4} Geol. and Min. vol. i. p. 504; vol. ii. p. 101. Unger, Gen. et Spec. Plant. Foss. p. 327.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} Geol. Mag. Vol. V. April, 1868, PI. IX. pp. 153–156.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 2} See note ante. I was not in the least aware of Saporta's conclusion when this was written.

^{page 199 note 3} The mode of preservation is important, and is stated to he as follows:—“ The matrix in which it is preserved is an amorphous cream-coloured limestone, which has abounded in Molluscan remains, but the shells have been removed, and the spaces they occupied, as well as the other larger cavities in the rock, are lined with or entirely filled up by crystallized calcite. The fruit also is only a cast, in the same material, of the cavity which originally contained it. The fine white mud had insinuated itself into every crack and opening of the fruit, and filled the decayed interior of the upper portion of the drupes. The walls of the seed cavity and the seeds themselves, as well as the outer membrane of the drupes, resisted decay until the matrix was somewhat compacted. These hard portions at length decayed, but the insoluble carbon remained as a black amorphous substance, giving an external coloured coating to the crystallized carbonate of lime, which in the end filled the cavity, pre'serving in the most perfect manner the form of the fruit, and even some of the minute details as to the relation of the different parts.” Geol. Mas. I.e.

^{page 200 note 1} See papėr by Carruthers, W. F.B.S., Geol. Mao. 1867, Vol. IV.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 1} Although this conclusion seems highly probable, it must be borne in mind that at present we know of no Secondary stalked crinoid with a ”proboscis” like Poteriocrinus or Platycrinus. All the forms with this appendage being of Palaeozoic age.—H. W.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 2} Heer, Flora Helvetiæ, p. 138, pi. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 3} Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. vii. p. 189, C. giganteus, Bean MS.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} On some Anomalous Oolitic and Palaeozoic Forms of Vegetation, Royal Instituion, Feb. 16, 1883.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} Q.J.G.S. vol. vi. p. 415, 1850.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Mr. Brodie informs me that he regards them as a junction bed between the two formations.

^{page 203 note 3} Mr. Brodie has since sent me a capsule from these beds, which appears to belong to the same moss.

^{page 204 note 1} Murchison and Buckman, Outline of the Geology of Cheltenham, 1845.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} Evolution des Phanerogames, Saporta and Marion.