tissue. In fact, the question may be raised whether the specimen is actually of organic origin. The occasional striking similarity of purely inorganic concretions to living organisms, both animal and vegetable, is well known; but in this instance the resemblance to a hymenomycetous fungus appears to be too perfect to be regarded as an accidental simulation.
It is apparently referable to the Polyporaceae, as indicated by the character of the under surface of the pileus, and may be compared with Polyporus Polyporus (Retz.) Murrill, so far as its nearest living relationship is concerned; but its antiquity should preclude a reference to the living genus Polyporus, and it is clearly different from any of the fossil forms described under that genus or under the fossil genus Polyporites, all of which are from the Tertiary or more recent geological horizons, except Polyporites Bowmanni Lindley and Hutton,[1] from the Carboniferous of England, which is generally considered by paleontologists to be a fish scale and not a fungus. In fact, the only fossil forms with which our specimen may be even remotely compared are Hydnum argillae Ludwig,[2] and Agaricites Wardianus Meschinelli,[3] both of them from Tertiary horizons.
The generic name is designed to indicate its probable botanical affinities and the specific name its geologic age.
New York Botanical Garden.
- ↑ Foss. Fl. Great Britain I: 183, pl. 65, f. B1 and B2. 1831-33.
- ↑ "Fossile Pflanzen aus der Altesten Abtheilung der Rheinisch-Wetterauer Teritär-Formation." Palaeontog. 8: 57, pl. 8, f. 1, 1a-1c. 1859.
- ↑ "Di un Probabile Agaricino Miocenico." Atti Soc. Veneto-Trentina Sci. Nat. 122: 312, pl. 8. 1891.
