In 1855 Goldenberg[488] described some strobili which he regarded as those of _Sigillaria_ and recognised their close resemblance to a fertile plant of _Isoetes_. He was led to the conclusion, which had little influence on contemporary opinion, that _Sigillaria_ is related to _Isoetes_ and must be classed among Pteridophytes. To these long and narrow strobili Schimper gave the name _Sigillariostrobus_[489]. In 1884 Zeiller[490] supplied confirmation of Goldenberg’s view by the discovery of cones borne on pedicels with Sigillarian leaf-scars, thus demonstrating the generic identity of cones and vegetative shoots, which Goldenberg had connected on the evidence of association. Zeiller’s more recent work[491] and the still later researches of Kidston[492] have added considerably to our knowledge of the morphology of Sigillarian cones. Grand’Eury’s remark made so recently as 1890[493] that opinion in regard to the Gymnospermous nature of _Sigillaria_ is losing ground every day, bears striking testimony to the pertinacity with which old beliefs linger even in the face of overwhelming proof of their falsity. It is remarkable, in view of the abundance of vegetative shoots, how rarely undoubted Sigillarian strobili have been found; this may, however, be in part due to a confusion with Lepidostrobi which so far as we know do not differ in important respects from Sigillariostrobi[494]. There can be no doubt that _Sigillaria_ usually produced its cones on slender pedicels which bore a few leaves or bracts in irregular verticils, or in short vertical series on comparatively stout stems, an arrangement reminding us of the occurrence of flowers on old stems of _Theobroma_ and other recent Dicotyledons. As Renault[495] pointed out the fertile shoots are axillary in origin.