No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
I.—On some Coniferous Remains from the Lithographic Stone of Solenhofen
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
In the Häberlein collection there is a slab containing the remains of a branch, of which portions are figured in Pl. V., Fig. 1. It belonged, there is little reason to doubt, to a species of Pinus, in which, as in the section Larix, the leaves were borne in fascicles on abortive lateral branches. Traces of these leaves appear to exist at a and b. The specimen affords, unfortunately, no more information than this; nothing of the kind, however, appears to have been recorded from Solenhofen, and it has therefore appeared desirable to call attention to its existence.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1872
References
page 193 note 1 The not very intelligible Schizolepis Braunii, Schenk (see Schimper, Pal. Vég., vol. ii., p. 248) bad similarly arranged foliage.
page 193 note 2 The name of the genus founded by Don was not Arthrotaxis, but Athrotaxis. He expressly explains that the name alluded “to the crowded disposition of the leaves and scales of the female spike,” and that it is compounded of θρóoφ confertus. (Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. xviii., p. 174.)
page 194 note 1 See Hooker's Icones Plantarum, t. 559.
page 194 note 2 After removing the Solenhofen plants from the genus Echinostrobus, the only remaining species are E. robustu, Sap., and E. expansus (Thuites expansus, Sternb.). Of the last Schimper appears not to have seen cones; had he done so, he could not, I think, have retained it in its present position.
page 194 note 3 E. lycopodioides was the name no doubt intended to be used here. The Same specimen could hardly be referred to two distinct names in the same enumeration.