Ses ce tient hte! gets stb atii wes watts : , WEMEMtS iN Usain ta Lith tiie tiie on , : 4 + ih + ie ee {h3 Voisin et Ebet hea Vat 1s Meeps eer rein cle ae hi Supa aM MUS Seren En rT un CEES RET rR EL nS st ty nysai st aatad i Lelst tat ii aS il siya 4 teat Raisin Baht Suns ‘ i 5 : path Lee E! ett bbs a3 tant tat ; ¥: Sinisa RMT SEN LS i: sins isis: Pecieprba Sun URE x pai ee Bh sha etch wth brie eee gee EIT fetter et rrbit ela aby aeet AE ‘ ; o pe ae . + on oat for or Lsecriabes ene ost Sie Pordieer z sot tinct beat heed Ambeetatntt te tere iene eta aetna ire aaa Seen iee erei et jester on eree re. at een tiers hile th Aabotilebateovtt ation mac wi Ct grrr sreerih ane oot TILA A ped peels ane keh Lobe ht teeta butsbag Heat Bas A 48 oor : : 4 Pa = a ] = | 3 at : 4 : = 4 | ii desl saat east oteti tcledy died Saend bebe nataatedera guinea cia ped beaded enies pmregeyth tase tett th Camdacegesenescaney taint iiishabekcete lebseijuecrinnne.stize Mie ets eedternt * ~ ~ a s ¢ ~~ ; z +5 -— 7? "a PRESENTED : y BY Che Trustees OF HE BRITISH MUSEUM. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/catalogueofmesoz01 brituoft CATALOGUE OF THE MESOZOIC PLANTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY PARLE CATALOGUE OF THE MESOZOIC PLANTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). \eg THE WEALDEN FLORA. Part I.—THALLOPHYTA—PTERIDOPHYTA. PLATES JI-XI. BY A. C. SEWARD, M.A., F.G.S. UNIVERSITY LECTURER IN BOTANY, CAMBRIDGE. LONDON: PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES. SOLD BY LONGMANS AND CO., 39, PATERNOSTER ROW. B. QUARITCH, 15, PICCADILLY. DULAU AND CO., 37, SOHO SQUARE, S.W. KEGAN PAUL AND CO., CHARING CROSS ROAD, W.C. AND AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY), CROMWELL ROAD, 8.W. 1894. ne i" HERTFORD: PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS. PREFACE. THERE is probably no part of England which possesses a greater interest for geologists than that of the Weald. The area in which the Wealden beds are developed extends over a considerable part of Surrey, Sussex and Kent, between Haslemere, Hythe and Pevensey; they are also found in Dorsetshire and the Isle of Wight. But it is more particularly in the neighbourhood of Hastings that the more important fossil remains have been obtained. The beds exhibit evidence of having been accumulated in an estuary or lake, where fresh- water conditions prevailed. The Flora includes Conifera, Cycads, Ferns, etc., the Fauna Ostracoda (Cypridea) ; Insect remains; Mollusca (Cyrena, Unio, Melanopsis, Palu- dina, etc.); Fishes (Lepidotus, Hybodus, etc.); Reptiles (Crocodilia and Dinosauria); Mammals (P/lagiaulaz). Our earliest information respecting the strata is mainly due to the labours of Mantell and Fitton. Stokes and Webb, Robert Brown, Fitton, Brongniart, Dunker, Schimper, Carruthers, Count Solms-Laubach and others have noticed and described its fossil plants, but Mantell’s name will always be more particularly asso- ciated with the discoveries of organic remains, and with the history of the Wealden area. v1 PREFACE. We are fortunate in possessing many of Mantell’s original specimens of Wealden plants, but, although his- torically of great interest, they are largely superseded by those recently obtained by Mr. P. Rufford, whose fine collection has lately been acquired for the National Museum. It is satisfactory to know that in this country the long-neglected study of the Mesozoic plants is now being taken up by so able a Botanist as Mr. Albert Seward, and that the first instalment of his Catalogue is now complete. It is expected that the Wealden plants will occupy two fasciculi, and that the Oolitic plants of Yorkshire, of which the Museum possesses exceptionally fine materials obtained by the late Mr. Bean, by Dr. Murray of Scarborough, and other well-known collectors, may be similarly treated by Mr. Seward. HENRY WOODWARD. DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, March 10th, 1894. AUTHOR'S PREFACE. THE scope of the present volume is confined to the Thallophyta, Charophyta, Bryophyta, and Pteridophyta repre- sented in the British Museum collections of English Wealden plants. A general review and more critical discussion of the Wealden flora, as a whole, will be attempted in the second volume after the remaining classes of plants have been fully examined. I desire to express my obligation to Dr. Woodward, Mr. R. Bullen Newton, and other members of the Geological Department for the facilities and help which have been afforded me during my vacation visits to the Museum. My thanks are also due to Mr. Carruthers, who has always been ready to place at my disposal his wide knowledge of fossil and recent ferns; to my friend Mr. Geo. Murray I am indebted for generous help; also to other members of the Botanical Depart- ment, who have assisted me in various ways. For information on certain points connected with recent ferns I have availed myself of the exceptional advantages afforded by the Royal Gardens, Kew. vill AUTHOR’S PREFACE. In certain parts of the work I have received valuable assistance from Mr. C. Davies Sherborn. Mr. Rufford, whose labours have been the primary cause of this Catalogue, has aided me from time to time by helpful suggestions, and by his accurate local knowledge of the Wealden flora in the neighbourhood of Hastings. In conclusion I wish to express my thanks for com- munications received from the Marquis of Saporta, Prof. Stenzel of Breslau, Prof. Zeiller of Paris, and Dr. Bommer of Brussels. A. C. SEWARD. CAMBRIDGE, March 18th, 1894. INTRODUCTION. BrrorE proceeding to deal in detail with the fossil plants from the Wealden rocks of England, it may be useful to summarize the results of previous workers in the field of Wealden vegetation. After a sketch of the work already published by English geologists and paleobotanists, we will briefly notice those records of fossil plants from other countries which may serve as data, from which to draw conclusions as to the distribution of such floras as agree more or less closely with that of the English Wealden. The present volume is only concerned with the Thallophyta, Charophyta, Bryophyta and Pteridophyta, but in the lists quoted in the following pages the higher plants are included. In each case the specific names are reproduced unaltered from the writings of the several authors, with the addition of the newer titles in those cases where a change has been proposed in the present Volume. ENGLAND. The term ‘‘ Wealden” appears to have been first proposed by P. J. Martin’! in 1828, and is a modification of Weald Measures, instituted in 1822 by J. Middleton.” Martin, in his Geological 1 Geol. Mem. Sussex, p. 9. 2 H. B. Woodward, Geol. England and Wales, 1887, p. 336. b x INTRODUCTION. Memoir,! refers to the Wealden as including the Weald clay, Hastings sands, and Tilgate beds. In Topley’s exhaustive Memoir on the ‘Geology of the Weald” the area occupied by the rocks in question is spoken of as ‘one of the best defined geographical tracts in England. Its boundary is the chalk escarpment, which, commencing at Folkestone Hill, near the Straits of Dover, passes through the counties of Kent, Surrey, Hants and Sussex, to the sea at Beachy Head. The oval-shaped area thus enclosed is what geologists have termed the Weald.” ? The fossils which form the subject of the present Monograph have been collected from rocks included in the Wealden Series, as defined by H. B. Woodward in his ‘‘Geology of England and Wales,” that is, in the strata which are ‘‘developed over a considerable part of Surrey, Sussex and Kent, between Hasle- mere, Hythe and Pevensey; they are also found in Dorsetshire and the Isle of Wight.” In looking over the literature of Continental or, rather, extra- British Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy, we are met with a difficulty in the use of the terms Wealden and Neocomian. In a recent Monograph on the plants of the Potomac Flora of North America, Fontaine has thus referred to the want of a definite understanding as to the significance of these two names:* ‘The two formations which are capable of miscon- ception are the Wealden and Neocomian. By some, the Wealden formation is regarded as an independent group, forming the upper- most member of the Jurassic. Others regard it as a series of beds contemporaneous with a portion of the Lower Neocomian, formed in estuaries and marshes at the time when a portion of the typical Lower Neocomian, which is marine, was being de- posited in the sea. The latter view is the one assumed in this [Fontaine’s] Memoir.” The term Neocomian is used by Fontaine as including the Urgonian and Aptian of D’Orbigny. He goes on to say: ‘‘ When, then, reference is made to Neocomian plants, ‘ H. B. Woodward, Geol. England and Wales, 1887, p. 40. 2 Topley, Weald, p. 1. 3 Potomac Flora, p. 331. INTRODUCTION. x1 fossils of the Wealden, Urgonian, and Aptian groups are included and not distinguished.” ! It will be well, therefore, at the outset to state definitely in what sense the term Wealden is used in the present Catalogue. In his Memoir on the Weald, Topley expresses the opinion that the Wealden and Purbeck strata should be classed together as one unbroken series.” This and similar statements by various geolo- gists might be quoted in support of a Purbeck-Wealden series, and, possibly, such would best represent the true stratigraphical relations of the two sets of beds. On the other hand we are not concerned here with any critical examination of the geological evidence, whether stratigraphical or paleontological; and for the present, at least, it will be more convenient to conform to the general usage of the term by English geologists, and include the Wealden beds in the Cretaceous system to the exclusion of the Purbeck. In the Report of the British Committee to the International Geological Congress of 1888, the Reporters, Messrs. A. J. Jukes- Browne and W. Topley,* recommended a general classification of the Cretaceous system, in which the ‘‘ Lower series’ of the system is defined as comprising the Lower Greensand (Vectian), Weald Clay and Hastings Sands; the two latter being bracketed together as Neocomian. In the correlation table of the Cretaceous system, given by the same authors, the Purbeck beds are placed at the base in the South-Eastern area. In Geikie’s Text-book* the usual classification is adopted, the Purbeck beds being regarded as the uppermost members of the Jurassic system. In this connection it may be of interest to quote the views recently put forward by Messrs. Pavlow and Lamplugh in their Essay on the Speeton Clay. Their correlation of four zones 1 Potomac Flora, p. 332. 2 Weald, p. 321. 5 Cong. Géol, Int. App. B. Cretaceous, p. 77. 4 Text Book of Geology, 1893, p. 938. xl INTRODUCTION. of this East Yorkshire formation with Wealden rocks of North- West Germany, England, and North France is expressed in tabular form as follows!:— FOUR ZONES OF SPEETON CLAY. S. ENGLAND AND N.W. Germany. BovuLoene. Hils beds with Crioceras Emerici, etc., etc. Weald clay Hils clay with Hoplites regalis, etc., etc. Hastings sands. Upper Portlandian, brackish | Hils grit and con-| Upper Portlandian, or Purbeckian type| glomerate with] brackish or Pur- (Wealden of German geo- | Belemnites lateralis, beckian type. logists). etc. Serpulite Minder Mergel In another recent work, ‘‘Text Book of Comparative Geology,” by Kayser (translated and edited by Lake), we find this extremely WEALDEN. | GERMANY. ENGLAND. | Uppers ssc. Wialderthon tessscs-ereus: Weald clay o...ce..00 en | Middle ......| Deister sandstone ......... Hastings sands ......... | ee [ESerpmlite. o.css.cwatecers Purbeck hecssiestnareege se Miinder Mergel ......... simple table in which the term Wealden is used in the wider sense.? Having thus defined the term Wealden as employed by some of the most recent writers, and stated the sense in which it is used 1 Arg. Speeton, pp. 200-201. 2 p. 288. INTRODUCTION. xii in the present work, we will proceed to a general sketch of Wealden paleobotany. In the early part of the present century the Wealden series of Southern England was examined by Mantell and Fitton, and it is mainly to their labours that we owe our earliest knowledge of the life of that period. Gideon Mantell in 1822 published a work on “The fossils of the South Downs, or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex,” and included those rocks to which the term Wealden is now applied under the so-called Greensand formations, which he subdivided thus! :— Tron Sand. Tilgate beds. Weald or Oak Tree clay. Greensand. Greensand formation In the first of these subdivisions plant remains are recorded, but without any definite names, descriptions, or plates. The first figures and scientific names of Wealden plants are those contained in a paper contributed to the Transactions of the Geological Society in 1824. Two members of the Council, Messrs. Stokes and Webb, were appointed to describe certain fossils which had been forwarded to the Society by Mantell from Tilgate Forest; in the description of the plants ‘invaluable assistance’? was received from Mr. Robert Brown. The following species are mentioned, with figures*® :— Clathraria anomala, 8. and W. Pecopteris reticulata, S. and W. = Carpolithus Mantelli, S. and W.= Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). ? Hgquisetites Burchardt, Dunk. Endogenites erosa, §S. and W. = Hymenopteris psilotoides, S. and W. Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). In 1883 Mantell’s work appeared on ‘‘The Geology of the South-East of England,” and in chapter xi. there is a ‘‘ description Tempskya Schimperi, Corda. of the organic remains of the Wealden, and particularly of those of the strata of Tilgate Forest.”* The specific name of the genus Clathraria is changed from anomala to Lyelli, Hymenopteris psilotoides is spoken of as Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong., Pecopteris pea 2 Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. i. 1824, p. 421. 3p, 232. XIV INTRODUCTION. reticulata as Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong. In addition to these changes in nomenclature some additional species are recorded: Cycadites Brongniarti, Mant., Sphenopteris Sillimant, Mant.=? Ony- chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.), and S. Phillipsii=Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.), also Lycopodites?, Calamites, and Equisetum Lyelli, Mant. The same author furnishes a list of Wealden plants in a communication to the Geological Society entitled ‘‘ A tabular arrangement of the organic remains of the County of Sussex” ;* but in this list there are no species added to those already men- tioned. Three years later Fitton’s important paper was published: ‘Observations on some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite in the South-East of England.”? Under the heading Wealden, he includes Weald Clay, Hastings Sands, and Purbeck. New facts are brought forward with regard to the characteristic and problematical fossil Endogenites erosa, S. and W.= Tempskya Schimperi, Corda, and a new species of Sphenopteris, S. graeilis, Fitton *=Sphenopteris Fitton’, sp. nov., is figured and briefly described; the occurrence of a Coniferous cone is also noted. Without attempting to follow each step in the progress of our knowledge of Wealden floras, we may pass at once to a more recent publication and notice what species are recorded. In Topley’s Memoir, previously referred to, the following list of plants occurs *:— Araucarites (Zamiostrobus) Pipping- Sordensis, Ung. Carpolithes Mantelli, Brong. =? Equi- setites Burchardti, Dunk. Clathraria Lyell, 8S. and W.® Endogenites erosa, S. and W.° = Temp- skya Schimperi, Corda. Equisetites (Equisetum) Lyellii, Mant. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong. = Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Pterophyllum (Cycadites) Brongniarti, Mant. | Thuytes Sphenopteris gracilis, Fitton = Spheno- pteris Fittoni, sp. nov. S. Mantelli, Brong. = Onyehiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). S. Phillipsii, Mant.= Ruffordia Gop- perti (Dunk.). S. Sillimani, Mant. = ? Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). (Cupressites) Kurrianus, Dunk. Zamiostrobus (Zamia) crassus, Lind. 1 * Ibid. vol. iv. 1836, p. 103. 3 Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. iii. 1835, p. 201. 3 p. 181, figs. 1 and 2, and Appendix A. p. 349. 4 Weald, p. 409. ® Ihave substituted Stokes and Webb for Mantell as given by Topley as the authors of the species. INTRODUCTION. xV In the later edition of Dixon’s ‘‘ Geology of Sussex,’’ Carruthers has furnished a list of plants of Wealden age; the following species being mentioned in addition to many of those included in Topley’s list !:— Laccopteris Gopperti, Schimp.=Mat- | Equisetwun Burehardti, Dunk. = Equi- onidium Gopperti (Ett.). setites Burchardti, Dunk. Pecopteris Geinitzii, Dunk. Pinites Dunkeri, Carr. Cycadeostrobus, sp. A brief sketch of the Wealden flora is given by Bogle? in a paper on the ‘‘ Wealden Strata of East Sussex,’’ but no new species are added to the lists of plants recorded by previous writers. The next communication on this subject, to which reference need be made, is a note by E. H. Peyton in 1883,° in which the following additional species are recorded from British Wealden strata :—Oleandridium (Teniopteris) Beyrichii, Schenk, Pecopteris Murchisoni, Dunk., and Pterophyllum Schaumburgense (Dunk.) ; there is also a specimen mentioned which is considered to be probably Sphenopteris Gopperti, Dunk. = Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). In the later edition of Bristow’s ‘‘Geology of the Isle of Wight,” the following plants are mentioned as occurring in Wealden strata‘: — Pinites Carruthersi, Gardn. Cyeadeostrobus turnidus, Carr. P. Dunkeri, Mant. C. Watlkeri, Carr. P. valdensis, Gardn. Endogenites erosa, 8. and W.=Timp- Bennettites Saxbyanus, Carr. skya Schimperi, Corda. Carpolithes sertum = impressions of | Lquisetites Burchardti, Dunk. ? Equisetites Yokoyame, sp. nov. Fittonia squamata, Carr. Chara? =C. Knowiltoni, sp. nov. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong. = Weich- Clathraria Lyelli, 8. and W. selia Wantelli (Brong.). Cycadeostrobus crassus, Carr. Seeds. C. elegans, Carr. Thuyites. C. ovatus, Carr. Zamia crassa? L.and H. (See Cyeadeo- C. truncatus, Carr. strobus crassus, Carr.) 1 Geol. Sussex, 1878, p. 279. * Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Eastbourne, May 20, 1881. (I am indebted to the Rev. H. G. Jameson, of Eastbourne, for a short abstract of this paper.) 3 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxix. 1883, Proc. p. 3. 4 Geol. I. Wight, 1889, p. 258. Xvi INTRODUCTION. In addition to the plants already enumerated, the following Gymnosperms must be noted from the papers of Carruthers, Starkie Gardner, and others :— Pinites Mantelli, Carr.} beck, but the species is quoted on P. patens, Carr. another page of the same paper as ? P. Fittoni, Carr. (This is described a Wealden Conifer.) by Carruthers as labelled from Pur- -In the Report on Mesozoic and Tertiary Gymnosperms presented to the British Association in 1886,? there is the following state- ment, which has not been disproved by subsequent discoveries. After speaking of some fossil plants previously mentioned by Mantell and compared to Dracena, the writer of the Report continues—‘‘ No other trace has been found of any more highly organized plants than Ferns or Gymnosperms, and this, when we remember that Monocotyledons were undoubtedly in existence, is a fact that should be of great significance to speculative geologists. The sediments must represent the deposits of a drainage system of a large area, for they are of vast extent and thickness, varied in character, and abounding in remains of trunks and stems, fruits and foliage of plants. In them, there- fore, if anywhere, we might reasonably expect to find, at least, the trace of reed and rush, but the swamps seem to have been tenanted only by Equisetums and Ferns, and the forests mainly by Cycads and Conifers.”’ This is especially noteworthy, as Angiosperms have been re- corded in floras, agreeing in their general facies with the English Wealden, from North America and Portugal. . The great majority of the specimens described in the present volume have been obtained by Mr. Rufford from the Wealden rocks in the neighbourhood of Hastings. I am indebted to him for the following diagrammatic section and brief description of the strata from which the material was obtained. 1 Geol. Mag. vol. iii. 1886, p. 543. 2 p. 2438. * This statement has reference to British fossils only. INTRODUCTION. “ce, Wadhurst Clay.’ Consisting of dark-blue shales and clays, inter- calated with thin slabs of sand- stone, also sand-rock, with ‘blue stone’ at base. “b. Ashdown Sands. Thick beds of sandstone, divided by thin layers of shales and clays. ‘6a. Fairlight Clays. Clays and shales predominating, but with some beds of sandstone and ironstone; these latter yielding, very locally, Ferns, Cycads and Conifers. ‘‘Norzr.—The general course of the ancient Wealden River, as evidenced by the ripple-marks (which would naturally be found parallel to the stream), and also by the trend of scattered remains, such as the bones of individual animals, trunks of trees, and other débris, appears to have taken a direction in the neigh- bourhood of Hastings from N.E. to S.W. Consequently the coast section would be obliquely across the bed of the river, and this fact may account for the very limited extent of outcropping 2447098219 fossiliferous beds.”’ 1 See also Topley, Weald, p. 46. uo sbunsvy Coast section between Hastings and Pett Levels. xvi 500 feet. Vertical scale (approximate), 1 inch Horizontal scale (approximate), 14 inches=1 mile. ce. Wadhurst Clay. b. Ashdown Sands. a. Fairlight Clays. XvVill INTRODUCTION. FRANCE. Three species of Wealden plants are mentioned by Brongniart from Beauvais ?:— Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong.= Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Pachypteris gracilis, Brong. =Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov. Brachyphyllum Gravesii, Brong. De Lapparent, in his ‘“ Traité de Geologie,”? refers to the development of fresh-water infra- Cretaceous rocks south of Beauvais in the Pays de Bray, and notes the occurrence of the common English fossil Werchselia Mantelli (Brong.).’ GERMANY. Dunker’s well-known Monograph,‘ which appeared in 1846, deals exhaustively with the fresh-water formation of Northern Germany, previously correlated by Hoffman with the English Wealden. These rocks are comprised in a stretch of country between Helmstidt and Bentheim, and are usually subdivided into two members, the lower consisting of sandstones, etc., and the upper of clay beds; to the former the term Wealden or Deister Sandstone (= Hastings Sands of English geologists) is applied, and to the latter Weald Clay. The flora of these North German beds is obviously of the same facies as the Wealden of England, and no doubt of the same geological age. It should be noticed, however, that in Pavlow and Lamplugh’s Monograph,* to which reference has already been made, it is stated that the beds in Germany spoken of as Wealden have little in common with the typical Wealden of England. The next contribution to which attention needs to be called is one from Ettingshausen in 1852 on the doubtful fossil Palgoxryris, Brong., which is described at some length from the Deister beds under the name of Paleobromelia Jugleri, Ett.6 The mention of Paleoxyris in this introductory sketch is not intended to imply 1 Tableau, p. 107. * 1885, p. 1042; see also Passy, Descript. Géol. Seine-inf. p. 194. ’ Saporta has recently recorded another species from the Lower Wealden of Boulogne, Sphenopteris Delgadoi, ? Sap.=S. Fittoni, sp. nov. Rev. gen. bot. vol. y. p. 365, 1893, pl. iv. fig. 5. 4 Wealdenbildung. 5 p. 189. 6 Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. 1852, Abth. iii. p. 1. INTRODUCTION. XIX that it should necessarily be included in the list of Wealden plants; very possibly, as Zeiller and Renault have shown, this puzzle to paleeobotanists may find its proper place among fossil animals.’ Schenk’s important contributions,? while correcting the earlier work of Dunker and others, supply much additional information as to the flora of the German Wealden. Several of Dunker’s species are found by Schenk to have no claim to stand as such, but are shown by the more perfect material collected since 1846 to be fragments of different portions of one and the same species. Following the two papers by Schenk we have a useful Monograph by Struckmann,*® in which the following list of Wealden plants is given; and this may be taken to represent the species recorded from German Wealden rocks up to 1880. Fucoiditee ? Equisetum Burchardti, Dunk. = Equi- setites Burchardti, Dunk. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong. = Ony- chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). S. Gopperti, Dunk. = Ruffordia Gép- perti (Dunk.). S. delicatissima, Schenk. Lomatopteris Schimperi, Schenk. Baiera pluripartita, Schimp. Pecopteris Dunkeri, Schimp. = Clado- philebis Dunkeri (Schimp.). P. Murchisoni, Dunk. P. Geinitzii, Dunk.* Schenk’s figure = Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov. Alethopteris Browniana (Dunk.) = Cladophlebis Browniana (Dunk.). A. Huttoni (Dunk.). A. cycadina, Schenk. Matonidium (Laecopteris) (Schimp.). Gopperti Laccopteris Dunkeri, Schenk = Micro- dictyon Dunkeri (Schenk). Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.). Hausmannia dichotoma, Dunk. Marsilidium speciosum, Schenk. Jeanpaulia Brauniana, Dunk. Tempskya Schimperi, Corda. Protopteris Witteana, Schenk. Clathraria Lyelli, S. and W.® Cycadites Roemeri, Schenk. Anomozamites Schaumburgense(Dunk.). Pterophyllum Lyellianum, Dunk. Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gopp.). D. Goppertianus (Dunk.). Pachyphyllum curvifolium (Dunk.). P. crassifolium, Schenk. Abietites Linkii (A. Rmr.). Sphenolepis Sternbergiana (Dunk.), S. Kurriana (Dunk.). Spirangium Jugleri (Ktt.). 1 Compt. Rend. vol. cvii. 1888, p. 1022. * Paleontographica, vol. xix. 1871, and vol. xxiii. 1875. 3 Weald. Hannover, p. 44. * The existence of Dunker’s Wealden species, P. Geinitzii, seems to have been overlooked by Gutbier and others, who make use of the same name for a Permian fern of a different character. e.g. See Sterzel, Flor. Roth. Plauenschen Grunde, Abh. k. Sachs. Ges. Wiss. math. phys. Cl. vol. xix. p. 120, 1893. ° Mantell is given by Struckmann as the author of this species. xx INTRODUCTION. In a paper by Hosius and Von der Marck, published in the Paleontographica for 1879-1880, a number of plants are figured and described from the Westphalian Chalk formation; the following species are mentioned from the Lower Gault and Neocomian! :— Lonchopterisrecentior, Schenk = Weich- selia Mantelli (Brong.). Clathraria galtiana, Hos. and V.d. M. Megalozamia faleiformis, Hos. and Y. d. M. Protopteris punctata (Sternb.). Weiehselia Ludoviee, Stiehler = W. Mantelli (Brong.). Laccopteris Dunkeri, Schenk = Micro- dictyon Dunkeri (Schenk). Sagenopteris Neocomiensis, Hos. and Wo Ob ile Pterophyllum Germaria, E. vy. Otto. P. blechniforme, Hos. and Y. d. M. P. Saxonicum, Reich. Dioonites abietinus, Miguel. Podozamates equalis, Miguel. Zamites iburgensis, Hos. and Y. d. M. Z. nervosus, Schenk. Abietites Linkii, Roem. Sphenolepis Sternbergiana, Schenk. S. Kurriana? Schenk. Pitcairnia primeva, Hos. and V.d. M. In a later communication from the same authors Pinus Quenstedti, Heer, is added to the list of Neocomian plants from Westphalia.’ A number of distinctly Wealden plants has been recorded from strata in the neighbourhood of Quedlinburg, on the northern side of the Hartz Mountains; these beds are spoken of as Lower Quadersandstone and ‘“ Hilssandstein.”’ given by Schulze * :— Alethopteris cycadina, Schenk. A. revoluta. Matonidium Gopperti, Schenk. Gleichenia, ct. rotula, Hr. G. cf. giesekiana, Hr. Cf. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong. = Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). The following species are Pteridophyllum fastigiatum, Schulze. Zamites, sp. Cf. Sequoia faleifolia, Roemer, sp. = Sphenolepis Sternbergiana, Schenk. Sphenolepis imbricata, Roemer, sp. = S. Kurriana, Schenk. * Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. 1880, pp. 201 e¢ seg. ? Ibid. vol. xxxi. 1885, p. 231. * Flor. subhereyn. Kreid. pp. 10 e¢ seg. INTRODUCTION. Xx1 In addition to these there are three species recorded from Langenberg near Quedlinburg *:— Weichselia Ludovice, Stiehler = W. Mantelli (Brong ). Pterophyllum Ernestine, Stiehler. Pandanus Similde, Stiehler. In a recent communication from Struckmann? on the strata between the ‘‘Hilsthon’” and Wealden of North Germany, it is pointed out that in England the brackish water-deposits at the end of the Jurassic period seem to have continued for a longer time than in North Germany; and this author suggests that the Wealden should be regarded not as a distinct formation, but as a facies, consisting of brackish water-deposits at the close of the Jurassic period, and which, in some places, extended to the Chalk. AUSTRIA. Ettingshausen in 1852 described a number of fossil plants from Zsbing and a few other localities, from beds considered to be of Wealden age ; many of the species being identical with Wealden plants of Northern Germany. The following species are recorded from these plant-bearing beds * :— Confervites setaceus, Ett. Teniopteris Zibingiana, Ett. = ? Frag- Sargassites Partschii, Ett. ment of Newropteris. Spherococites chondrieformis, Ett. Cycadites Brongniarti, Roem. Equisetites Burchardti, Dunk. Pterophyllum Buchianum, Ett. Oyclopteris squamata, Ett. P. nervosum, Ett. C. Mantelli, Dunk. = ? Sagenopteris | Culmites priscus, Ett. Mantelli (Dunk.). | Thuites Hoheneggeri, Ett. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong.=Ony- | Araucarites Dunkeri, Ett. chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). A. curvifolius, Ett. Alethopteris recentior, Ett.=? Weich- | Carpolithes Lindleyanus, Dunk. selia Mantelli (Brong.). C. rostellatus, Ett. In 1871 Schenk discusses the plants and geologic age of the Wernsdorfer beds at some length; from an examination of the flora he concludes that these Carpathian rocks are nearer in age 1 Flor. subhercyn. Kreid. p. 14. 2 Jahrb. k. preuss. geol. Landesanst, 1889, p. 54. 3 Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, 1862, p. 1. Xxil INTRODUCTION. to the Jura and Wealden than to the Chalk period. The following additions are made to the species already included among the plants from Ettingshausen’s Wealden localities *:— Chondrites furcillatus, Roem. P. Hoheneggeri, Sch. Baiera cretosa, Sch. P. obovatus, Sch. Cycadopteris Dunkeri, Sch. Zamites Gépperti, Sch., and four other Cycadites Heerii, Sch. species. Podozamites Zittelii, Sch. Widdringtonites gracilis, Heer ? In Velenovsky’s contributions to Mesozoic botany we have certain species recorded from Lower Cretaceous rocks in Bohemia which point to a close agreement in facies with the North German and English Wealden. These beds are classed by Velenovsky as Cenomanian.2 Among the ‘Ferns’? from Peruc and other localities the following species occur, which are identical with or closely allied to typical Wealden forms :— Thyrsopteris capsulifera, Vel. P. Albertini (Dunk.) =? Cladophlebis Laccopteris Dunkeri, Schenk = Micro- Albertsii (Dunk.). Pteris frigida, Heer. Dicksonia punctata (Sternb.). dictyon Dunkeri (Schenk). Jeanpaulia carinata, Vel. Tempskya varians (Corda). Among the Gymnosperms from the same beds there are certain forms which closely resemble Wealden species *—e.g. :— Thinnfeldia variabilis, Vel. =? Sageno- | Cunninghamites elegans, Heer. pteris Mantedli (Dunk.). Pinus Quenstedti, Heer. Nilssonia Bohemica, Vel. Eolirion primigenium, Sch. Sequoia Reichenbachi, Heer. PORTUGAL. In his ‘‘ Contributions & la flore fossil du Portugal” Heer has given descriptions and illustrations of the following species from two localities—Almargem and Valle de Lobos; these floras are considered by him to be in “intimate relation with the Wealden flora.”’+ 1 Palexontographica, vol. xix. 1871, p. 23. * Abh. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. vii. Folg. Band ii. 1888. 3 Gymn. bohm. Kreid. * Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. vi. INTRODUCTION. Tenidium lusitanicum, Hr. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong. = Ony- chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). S. Gomesiana, Hr. S. plurinervia, Hr. S. valdensis, Hr. (in part) = Onychi- opsis Mantelli (Brong.). S. angustiloba, Hr. S. lupulina, Hr. Pecopteris Dunkeri, Schimp. = Clado- phlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.). P. Choffatiana, Hr. Laccopteris pulchella, Hr. Xxill Ctenidium integerrimum, Hr. C. dentatum, Hr. zekanowskia nervosa, Hr. Sequoia lusitanica, Hr. Sphenolepidium Sternbergianum, Dunk., sp. S. Kurrianum, Dunk., sp. S. debile, Hr. Brachyphyllum obesum, Hr. B. corallinum, Hr. Frenelopsis occidentalis, Hr. Bambusium latifolium, Hr. Caulinites atavinus, Hr. Matonidium Gépperti, Ett., sp. More recently Saporta has published a note in the Comptes Rendus for 1891,! in which he mentions some interesting species of fossil plants discovered at Cercal, between Cenomanian and ‘‘ Neojurassic’? beds. Among the ferns he draws attention to Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong., S. plurinervia, Hr., S. valdensis, Hr., and 8S. angustiloba, Hr.; there are also two species of Hepatice recorded, and two or three Lycopodiaceous plants, with a remarkable new species, Jsoetopsis Choffati, referred to the Tsoetacee. Brachyphyllum, Sphenolepidium and Frenelopsis are quoted as Coniferous genera. The most important fossils are, however, certain species which he considers to be Angiosperms, and especially Dicotyledons. Poacites, Brong., Zosteris, Brong., and Delgadoa, Sap., are placed among the Monocotyledons, with Protolemna and Protorrhipsis, Andr., as representatives of the oldest known Dicotyledons. BELGIUM. Under the head of Wealden plants we must include the following species of Cycads and Conifers described by Coemans from Baume * :— 1 Compt. Rend. vol. exiii. 1891, p. 249. See also Rev. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893. 2 Mém. Ac. R. Belg. vol. xxxvi. 1867, p. 82. XXIV INTRODUCTION. Cycadites Schachti, Coem. Pinus gibbosa, Coem. Pinus Omalii, Coem. P. Heeri, Coem. P. Briarti, Coem. P. depressa, Coem. P. (Cedrus Corneti?), Coem. P. Toillezi, Coem. P. Andrei, Coem. With these species from St. Vaast there should be mentioned the following, which were discovered in the Colliery of Bernissart, in the same beds which have yielded JZyuanodon remains in such extraordinary abundance. The species included in the list are given by Dupont in a paper published in 1878, Saporta being responsible for the names!:— Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong. = Weich- ; Sphenopteris Gépperti, Dunk. =Ruf- selia Mantelli (Brong.). Sordia Gépperti (Dunk.). Pecopteris polymorpha, Dunk. =Clado- | §. Roemeri, Dunk. = Onychiopsis Man- phlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.). telli (Brong.). P. Conybeari, Dunk. = Matonidium | Gleichenia? Gopperti (Ett.). Gleichenites. Alethopteris elegans, G6pp. =I. Gép- perti (Ett.). We have the late Prof. Newberry’s testimony’ that no trace of any Angiospermous species occurs among the plants found with the Jguanodon remains at Bernissart. Dr. Bommer, of Brussels, is at present engaged upon the examination of certain Wealden plants recently collected in the neighbourhood of the same locality from which Coeman’s specimens were obtained.® RUSSIA. In the Bull. Soc. nat. Moscou for 1844, Auerbach figures and gives brief descriptions of some fossil plants from Sandstone strata in the province of Moscow. There is, however, no dis- cussion in his paper as to the age of the rocks, but among the figures a species is represented which has a striking resemblance to Weichselia (Lonchopteris) Mantelli (Brong.). Turning to Mur- chison’s ‘Geology of Russia” (1845), we find the statement that no Wealden rocks occur either in Russia or Poland.’ The 1 Bull. Ac. R. Belg. sér. ii. 1878, p. 396. * Amer. Journ. vol. xli. 1891, p. 194. 3 Letter from Dr. Bommer, Nov. 1893. 4 Vol. xvii. 1844, 1, p. 146, pl. v. 5 Geol. Russia, vol. i. p. 260. INTRODUCTION. XXV geologic age of the Klin Sandstones from which Auerbach’s plants were obtained has given rise to considerable discussion ; the so-called ‘‘ Klin’sche must be regarded as homotaxial with the Quadersandstein; on the other hand Trautschold,? who has described the plants from these strata, insists on the close agreement of the flora with that of the North German Wealden. opinion as to the age of the Klin beds against that of Eichwald, according to Eichwald’ Sandstein ”’ He supports his own by quoting Dunker’s views, based on an examination of the plants. The following is a list of the species given in Traut- schold’s Monograph; he points out the admixture of Jurassic and Cretaceous forms, and recognizes that some of the species undoubtedly give a Wealden facies to the flora. Calamites, sp. Equisetites, sp. Odontopteris dubia, Traut. Sphenopteris Auerbachi, Traut.=Ruf- | Sfordia Gopperti (Dunk.). Reussia pectinata, Gopp. Asplenites desertorum, Traut. A. Klinensis, Traut. (in part) = selia Mantelli (Brong.). Alethopteris Reichiana (Brong.). A. metrica, Traut. Pecopteris Whithyensis, Brong. = Clado- phlebis Albertsii (Dunk.). P. Althausi, Dunk. = Matonidiwn Gépperti (Ett.). Weich- | Pecopteris nigrescens, Traut. P. decipiens, Traut. = Mierodictyon Dunkeri (Schenk). P. pachycarpa, Traut. P. explanata, Traut.=? Matonidium Gopperit (Ett.). Polypodites Mantelli, Gopp. = Weich- selia Mantelli (Brong.). Glossopteris solitaria, Traut. Cycadites acinaciformis, Traut. Thuytes ecarinatus, Traut. Araucarites hamatus, Traut. Pinus elliptica, Traut. Auerbachia echinata, Traut. Phyllites reguiaris, Traut. Several of these determinations have been justly called into question by Schenk.’ These plant beds of Klin, Tatarowo, etc., are placed by Pavlow and Lamplugh on the same horizon as the Upper Portland (brackish or Purbeckian type) and the Hils Conglomerate.‘ Carruthers’ has expressed the opinion, in a footnote to a paper in the eighth volume of the Geological Magazine (1871), that the facies of the Klin flora is Cretaceous in character. 1 Bull. Soc. nat. Moscou, vol. xxxiv. 1861, 4, p. 432. 2 Nouv. Mém. Soe. nat. Moscou, vol. xi. p. 231. 3 Paleeontographica, vol. xix. p. 261. 4 Arg. Speeton, pp. 200-201. 5 Geol. Mag. vol. vill. p. 540. XXVl INTRODUCTION. GREENLAND. Without quoting the Kome beds of Greenland as undoubtedly agreeing in the character of their flora with the Wealden of England and North Germany, it must be noted that Heer has insisted on the fact that there are several features in common between them and the rocks of Wealden age in more southern latitudes. This well-known flora! has been collected from several localities in the Noursoak Peninsula on the west coast of Greenland; it is characterized, among Greenland fossil floras, by the almost total absence of Dicotyledons. We shall be in a better position to examine the general characters of the Kome plants, and take note of such species of distinctly Wealden type as are repre- sented in these northern latitudes, when we have completed the description of the English Wealden flora. Heer points out, that in spite of the small number of species in common, there are enough to form a connecting link between the Kome flora and those of the Wernsdorfer beds and typical Wealden districts; certain nearly allied species are quoted in support of this assertion. Johnstrup, in the French resumé at the end of the fifth volume of the Meddelelser om Gronland, speaks of the Kome flora as undoubtedly Urgonian in age.? The same flora is referred to by Dawson in a recent number of ‘‘Nature,”* as probably corresponding to the Kootanie of Canada and the Wealden of England. AMERICA. An exceedingly important work has recently been completed by Prof. Fontaine, in which an abundant and varied flora is described from the Potomac beds of North America. The term ‘‘ Potomac ”’ * Fl. foss. Arct. vols. iii. vi. and vii. See also Meddel. Grénland, vol. y. 1883. For list of fossils see Fl. foss. Arct. vol. vii. pp. 173 et seg. 2 Heer, doc. cit. vol. vii. p. 157. > Meddel. Gronland, doc. cit. p. 227. * Vol. xlvii. 1898, p. 557. INTRODUCTION. XXVIl was first used by McGee on account of the development of typical rocks of this series along the course of the Potomac river. Most of the plants from these strata were collected from Virginia, a few also from Maryland. Fontaine considers it very probable that the Potomac beds were laid down under conditions very similar to those characteristic of the European Wealden sediments ;’ he shows, too, that there is an important floral element in the Potomac vegetation which finds its nearest representative in the Wealden rocks of Europe. The same author expresses astonish- ment at the unusually large number of new species which his researches have brought to light in the Potomac flora.* Many of the specimens which he has figured are without doubt new forms; but, in looking carefully over the numerous illustrations, it is difficult, in some cases, to appreciate the minute differences which are pointed to as evidence of specific distinctions, and the impression is left that the list of new species is perhaps rather longer than it need have been. Be this as it may, the flora is of exceptional interest, and throws fresh light on the difficult problem of the evolution of Dicotyledons. The following species are quoted by Fontaine as identical with, or closely allied to, European Wealden plants * :— Equisetum Tyelli, Mant. = Equisetites | Aspidiwn Dunkeri, Schimp. = Clado- Lyelli, Mant. phlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.). E. virginicum, Font. Asplenium dubium, Font. Cladophlebis constricta, Font. Thyrsopteris rarinervis, Font.= Ony- C. falcata, Font. chiopsis elongata (Geyl.). C. acuta, Font. T. densifolia, Font. C. oblongifolia, Font. Dioonites Buchianus, Schimp. C. brevipennis, Font. Dioonites Buchianus, yar. angusti- Pecopteris strictinervis, Font. folius, Font. P. constricta, Font. Tysonia Marylandica, Font. P. Browniana, Dunk. Sphenolepidium virginicum, Font. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong.=Ony- | S. Kurrianum, Heer. chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). S. Sternbergianum (Dunk.), Heer. The flora, as a whole, Fontaine considers to range from the 1 Potomac Flora, p. 62. 2 Ibid. p. 334. 3 pp. 350 ef seg. XXVlll INTRODUCTION. Wealden, through the Urgonian, and probably including some Cenomanian forms. Lester Ward has discussed the geologic age of the Potomac flora in a paper published before the appearance of Fontaine’s Monograph; in a table intended to show the floral elements of this flora he demonstrates the predominance of the Wealden facies. The evidence of the plants is obviously in favour of assigning these Eastern American strata to the Wealden period, but Ward points to the vertebrate fossils as indicative of a Jurassic age, thus furnishing another example of an apparent discrepancy between plants and animals as indices of geological position. He does not wish to argue for the Jurassic age of the Potomac flora, but remarks that ‘‘the most it is intended to claim is that, if stratigraphical relations and the animal remains shall require its reference to the Jurassic, the plants do not present any serious obstacle to such reference.’ * Knowlton,’ in his paper on the fossil wood and lignite of the Potomac beds, has also pointed out this divergence of opinion between paleobotanists and paleeozoologists. Newberry,‘ in view of the large number of Angiosperms in this flora, expressed himself in favour of a higher rather than a lower horizon than the Wealden. The same author, in the paper referred to, gives an account of the flora of the Great Falls Coal- field, Montana; this coal-basin lies on the northern slope of the Belt and Highwood Mountains, subordinate folds of the Rocky Mountain system. After speaking of Fontaine’s determination of the Great Falls plants, to whom they had been submitted for examination, Newberry concludes that these identifications ‘ prove conclusively the general identity of the geological horizons of the Potomac group, the Great Falls group, the Kootanie group of Canada, and the Kome group of Greenland, and confirm the view advocated by Prof. Fontaine and myself that the Potomac group Amer. Journ. ser. iii. vol. xxxvi. 1888, p. 126. Ibid. p. 181. Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 56, 1889, p. 38. Amer. Journ. vol. xli. 1891, p. 194. ~ CO DO INTRODUCTION. XX1X is Lower Cretaceous and not Jurassic ;”’* and, in another place, he adds: ‘‘ With equal certainty we can assert that the Potomac, the Kootanie, and the Kome groups represent perhaps distinct but closely related epochs of the Neocomian or Lower Cretaceous of the Old World.” ? The following list shows the close resemblance between this Great Falls flora and the Old World Wealden :— Thyrsopteris rarinervis, Font. A plant near to Podozamites distanti- nervis, Font. Cladophlebis parva, Fout. Sequoia Reichenbachi, Heer. Pecopteris Browniana, Dunk. = Clado- phiebis Browniana (Dunk.). Aspidium Fredericksburgense, Font. Sphenolepidium virginicum, Font. A plant allied to Zhyrsopteris brevi- folia, Font. A plant near to Cladophlebis distans, Font. Thyrsopteris insignis, Font. Carpolithus virginiensis, Font. A plant near to Cycadiospermum rotun- datum, Font. Pecopteris microdonta, Font. Thyrsopteris brevipennis, Font. A plant near to Cladophlebis constricta, Font. Chiropteris Williamsii, Newb. C. Spatulata, Newb. Zamites apertus, Newb. Baiera brevifolia, Newb. Cladophlebis angustifolia, Newb. Sequoia acutifolia, Newb. Podozamites nervosa, Newb. Oleandra arctica, Heer. In a more recent paper Fontaine* fully endorses the opinions expressed by Newberry as to the age of the Great Falls group of Montana, and records the following additional species from this flora :— Equisetum Lyelli ?, Mant. Aspidium Montanense, Font. A. monocarpum, Font. A. angustipinnatum, Font., var. Mon- tanense, Font. Pecopteris Montanensis, Font. P. Browniana, ? Dunk. Cladophlebis heterophylla, Font. Osmunda dicksonioides, Fout. Thyrsopteris microloba, ? var. alata, Font. T. rarinervis, Font. Sequoia ambigua, ? Heer. S. rigida, Heer. Sphenolepidium virginicum, Font. Taxodium (Glyptostrobus) ramosium, Font. Zamites Montanensis, Font. One of the new species in the above list, Aspidium Montanense, seems to come very near to Cladophlebis Dunkert (Schimp.). Cf. 1 Amer. Journ. vol. xli. 1891, p. 193. 2 Ibid. p. 195. 3 Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. xv. 1892, p. 488. XXX INTRODUCTION. Fontaine’s figures, pl. lxxxii. and Pl. VII. Fig. 3 of the present Catalogue. In a posthumous work by Lesquereux on the Flora of the Dakota group, edited by Knowlton, we find this American flora correlated with that of the Harz Quadersandstein, also with the floras of NiederschOna and Quedlinburg.! Reference has been made to these German floras because certain of their floral elements show a close relationship to members of the typical Wealden vegetation; in the Dakota flora there seems to be hardly the same reason for comparison with the Wealden floras of Southern England and Northern Germany. The two species Glerchenia Nordenskisldi, Heer, and Sequoia Reichenbachi, Gein., are common to the Dakota and Potomac floras; several species also occur in the Kootanie flora, in the Neocomian of Westphalia and the Urgonian of Kome, but we do not find a distinct Wealden facies in the Cenomanian Dakota flora.’ For a critical account of the Cretaceous rocks of America reference should be made to the Cretaceous Correlation papers by C. A. White, which have appeared in a recent number of the United States Geological Survey Bulletins.» The Potomac formation is provisionally assigned to the base of the Cretaceous system, but stress is laid on the difficulty of arriving at any very definite conclusions as to the real age of this widespread deposit. It is pointed out that a large proportion of the plant remains figured by Fontaine from Virginia were found in rounded and lenticular masses of indurated clay imbedded in the Sandstone or Arkose deposit: ‘‘One is therefore disposed,’ says White, ‘“ to inquire whether the plants may not represent a somewhat older deposit than is that part of the Potomac formation im which they are found.’’+ No attempt is made in this Correlation paper to correlate the American divisions of the Cretaceous system with their European 1 Dakota Flora, p. 20. * Ibid. pp. 222 et seg. ‘‘ Table of distribution.” 3 Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 82, 1891. 4 Ibid. p. 90. INTRODUCTION. XXX1 equivalents, because it is believed ‘‘that much more extensive studies of these formations ought to be made before any such correlation can be satisfactorily established.”’? Referring to Newberry’s discovery of Potomac species in the Kootanie beds of the Great Falls of Missouri river in Montana, White points out that, although some of the plants may be identical, it is certain the waters in which the two formations were deposited were geographically widely separated.” CANADA. In a table of correlation given by Newberry * in a paper on the Cretaceous floras of North America, he places the Kootanie plant- bearing beds of Canada on the same horizon with the European Wealden. Dawson‘ considers these beds as representatives of the Urgonian or Neocomian series; he compares them to the Kome beds of Greenland. There are, however, no typical Wealden plants included in Dawson’s list; a comparison is made between Salisburia (Ginkgo) lepida, Heer, and certain leaves described by Dunker from the Deister Wealden, but no reference is given to indicate what particular leaves are referred to. The only plant- beds of America with which Dawson compares the Kootanie fossils are some in Maryland, in which Tyson discovered large Cycadean stems and which he referred to a Wealden age.° JAPAN. In 1877 Geyler® described and figured twelve species of ‘*Jurassic’”’? plants from the valley of the Tetorigawa in Kaga, 1 Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 82, p. 208. 2 Ibid. p. 252. 3 Trans. N. York. Ac. Sci. vol. v. 1885-86, p. 135. ¢ Trans. R. Soe. Canada, vol. iii. 1885. 5 Ibid. p. 18. © Palzontographica, vol. xxiv. p. 221. XXxXli INTRODUCTION. and in comparing this flora with those of other countries a resemblance is pointed out between the Japanese plants and some species described by Heer from Siberia and Spitzbergen. Nine years later Matajoro Yokoyama’ contributed a paper on the Jurassic plants of Kaga, Hida and Echizen, and adds a list of species from these localities. At a later date* he gives a much fuller account of this exceedingly interesting flora; and a detailed comparison is instituted with floras of other countries, the Jurassic floras of Siberia, Spitzbergen, the Yorkshire coast, Russia, China, India and Australia, also with the Wealden of Europe and the infra-Liassie of Tongking. A reference is made by Lester Ward? in his ‘‘ Geographical Distribution of Fossil Plants”? to Yokoyama’s earlier paper, and the suggestion offered that possibly these Japanese plants may prove to be of Lower Cretaceous age, and that the reference by Godfrey of the Kiushin leaf-beds to a Cretaceous horizon may have been correct. The evidence afforded by the ferns is certainly in favour of Ward’s suggestion. In 1890 Nathorst® made an important contribution to our knowledge of Japanese paleobotany. The plants from some of the localities are compared principally to Wealden species, and from other places there seems to be a mixture of Jurassic with Wealden and Urgonian species. Although the titles to the papers of Geyler and Yokoyama lead us to expect floras of distinctly Jurassic facies, we shall have occasion to point out in the description of certain English Wealden species a striking similarity, if not specific identity, between them and some of the Japanese plants. The following list includes the plants mentioned by Yokoyama and Nathorst :— 1 Bull. Geol. Soe. Japan, pt. B, vol. i. No. 1, 1886. ? Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 1. 3 U.S. Geol. Surv. Ann. Rep. No. 8, p. 789. * Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxiv. 1878, p. 546. 5 Denksch. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. 1890, p. 43. INTRODUCTION. Thyrsopteris Murrayana, Brong. T. prisca, Kich. T. kagensis, Yok. Dicksonia gracilis, Hr. D. acutiloba, Hr., var. D. ef. Glehniana, Hr. D. nephrocarpa, Bunb. Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.}. Adiantites Heerianus, Yok. A. Kochibeanus, Yok. A. lanceus, Yok. Asplenium Whitbiense, Brong. A. argutulum, Hr. A. distans, Hr. -Sphenopteris, sp.=Ruffordia Gopperte (Dunk.). Pecopteris exilis,! Phill. P. Saportana, Hr. Teniopteris (?). Macroteniopteris, cf. Richthofent, Schenk. Sagenopteris, sp. =? S. Mantelli (Dunk.). LEquisetum ushimarense, Yok. Anomozamites, sp. XXxiil Nilssonta orientalis, Hr. NV. ozoana, Yok. M. Nipponensis, Yok. Dioonites Kotoli, Yok. Zamites parvifolius, Geyl. Podozamites lanceolatus, six varieties). P. tenuistriatus, Geyl. P. Reinii, Geyl. Dictyozamites Lind. (and indicus, Fstm., var. distans. D. grossinervis, Yok. Cycadeospermum japonicum, Geyl. Ginkgodium Nathorsti, Yok. Ginkgo digitata, Brong. G. cf. lepida, Hr. G. Sibirica, Hr. Czekanowskia rigida, Hr. (?). Taxites, sp. Pinus, cf. prodromus, Hr. P. Nordenskjoldi, Hr. Palissya, sp. Vallionerites jurassicus, Hr. (?). Carpolithes ginkgoides, Yok. The following are the species enumerated by Nathorst :— Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.). Cladophilebis, sp. Cf. Nilssonia orientatis, Hr. NV. et. Schaumburgensis, Dunk. Zamiophyllum Buehianum (Ett.). Z. Naumanni, Nath. Pecopteris Geyleriana, Nath. =Clado- phiebis Dunkeri (Schimp.), and (in part) Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Lycopodites, sp. Sphenopteris Gépperti, Dunk. = Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.). Dicksoniopteris Naumanni, Nath. Pterophyllum, ef. cutchense, Morris. P.eopteris, cf. Browniana, Dunk. Mucroteniopteris ? marginata, Nath. NEW ZEALAND. From some specimens of plants brought by Hochstetter from the province of Auckland, between Waikato and Whaingarva, Unger described and figured two species of ferns which he named Asplenium paleopteris (= Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov.) and 1 = Kilvkia exilis (Phill.). XXXIV INTRODUCTION. Polypodium Hochstettert.. The formation from which these were collected is spoken of as probably Wealden in age.! The preceding sketch is by no means intended to convey the idea that all the plant-bearing beds referred to are probably of Wealden age. A more critical and detailed comparison of the species men- tioned in the above lists will be made after the descriptions of the English specimens have been completed. Very possibly some of the plants which have been quoted as Jurassic in age may have to be correlated eventually with the typical Wealden floras; but in this introductory review there have simply been given those plant lists which include species of undoubted Wealden affinities, or, in other words, of which Wealden floral elements form a more or less conspicuous part. The plants described by Bartholni? from Bornholm are spoken of as Jurassic in age, but it seems not at all unlikely that the evidence will be found to be rather in favour of a Lower Cretaceous horizon. It may be found that Wealden plant beds are also represented in Sweden; at least one characteristic species, Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.), has been recorded from Swedish strata. There are other records of plants to which allusion might be made as including at least one Wealden species, but it may suffice to mention two instances. In a notice by Tate in the Journal of the Geological Society for 1867 there is a plant figured under the name Sphenopteris antipodum, Tate,’ from the Geelhoutboon beds in the Uitenhage series (Lower Cretaceous) of South Africa. This fossil is compared by the author of the species to Sphenopteris Juglert, Ett., but there appears to be a much closer resemblance to Onychiopsis (Sphenopteris) Mantelli (Brong.), and, indeed, I have decided to include Tate’s fragment under this characteristic Wealden species.‘ ' Reise Fregatte Novara, vol. i. Abth. ii. p. 1. * Bot. Tid. Bot. For. Kjévenhavn, vol. xviii. Heft i. 1892, p. 12. $ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. 1867, p. 146. 4p. 44. INTRODUCTION. XXXV From the Cretaceous flora of Niederschdna in Saxony, Engel- hardt' has recently recorded this same species, Sphenopteris _ Mantelli, Brong., but unfortunately he does not give figures of any of the specimens. No mention has been made of those countries or districts in which fossiliferous strata have been described containing only animal fossils, but which are probably homotaxial with typical Wealden strata. The supposed Wealden rocks of Spain described by Linares* and the strata, presumably of the same age, of Columbia, South America, described by Major Plant,’ afford instances of such fresh-water beds. In the Second Part of this Catalogue it is intended to com- plete the description of the English Wealden plants. We shall then be in a much better position to deal with such general questions as (i) the distribution of Wealden plants throughout the world; (ii) the value of such plants as evidence of geologic age; (111) the Wealden climate; (iv) the relation of the Wealden flora to the vegetation of earlier and later periods. 1 Abh. Isis. Dresden, 1891, p. 79. ? Ann. Soc. Espa. Hist. Nat. vol. vii. 1878, p. 87. 3 Proc. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester, vol. xvi. 1877, p. 50. XXXV1 INTRODUCTION. See eee eee ee eee ——— 05 | som |} coe. |ane" |) node] Gao ave ve | x x foe foe [oe | ox freee epr0g ‘uaduayagy vhysduay, 500) |oaa-lleqaoe |son |/Earoe |) ano wae Se) ro lexatel seen al nome x |aou ‘dg 4a wag ‘suseapyua 0298.04] NT obo |} 565 |! se | wee | oes x BOC || ORI era elf DOC | en x yuayog ‘auamaoy wagjhydohjou Sora RODE Sch | DCT RROCLa HT Paap x x | x | x foe foe [oe | x [ttt (qmeyog) evayung uohzorpo.iyy see |e ve Sen | eas O0u x DOU Hip < x te [ea x fot (yun) yparunyy 82. vajdouabngy eee oe eee eee oe eee eee eee wee x eee eee oe x seneee (yuayog) nyor.thag siagdoma y ROSE FROOGE I Gt lhe 28) |UD x x |xi]x{]x |] x |o } x [rote (cuorg) wa2um7y vyasynayYy x fen aisle are Bod ann sss aoe wee x wae x asta x [eer son “ds “uoper siuagdouaydy Seal onge| bao alle [erro doe i ee |e = x 660 Il \oas X [rreeeeereerereeees (unryag) wayunq *p Sc |feoad || Gao ||| saad ||! oo) |/ ode ses vee toy K | ce | ce | = X [ttre Cor) vupwnoug “9 Pra Pes | OC | ise x eRe inca ee | soba Maine Mcicse Ira) ices ae usplaqyp siqayydopniy woe | cee | vee | gy | cee | ace ase x se-|) Se. |) Se || OS se Hoe [00 (- yun) ywaddoy nipiofnay sect Icon |! 4 Ts 3 aa nels 400 ae x Beeidlmeree ace x [es “ymetpg “punayye| 82.1990) 01,q ORC 030s Cop : : aes x |x |xi]x [coc] x | x [ret (agp) tpteddoy mnipiuoqnyr eee . . x eee oe eee eee eee eee eee oe Sci x sce cccccceescceees eee (hon) Dyn buoja 79) See Oy ceo ence || eel oon c6o0) sea ll se |] se ibe x | x [ott (-Suoagq) epazunyy sisdovyaiug eee eee eee iaie’ Acc eee eee eee x eee . eee x ecw eccecceesecs “AOU ‘ds ‘puphoyot “7 vee eee eee . eee aoe x x eee . = pre [PCICERO ROSCOE OS Trg g “oppmyoungy a . eee eee or x oe eee eee eee . oe o- XK [reese eeeees “que Tl “yjan'T saqyas by ajelels|e/zle?/Fl/Ele|E/F/e\2 4 a | 8. / S & ® 2 a Sse cs 5 3 | 98 A Seales Belge Sale| seals) salen) elem Soe ee ee ae amet y rales! a ae | me toe | Oe aes ‘galogag a Bu Ge Bi 8 | 5 Pie | 8 |S =| & o€ag FO LST Bf es ES 2 : Es =v ‘o14v} OY} UL popnpuUL you ore puLpsuy 0} avtpnoed sowods oy, ‘T weg uw poquosop ore yrs wphydoprayg Jo sorods osoy} JO AYNVY, TVOIHdVUOTH OY} SUTAOYS 9TqLY, INTRODUCTION. XXXVi List of Taattopnyra, CHaropuyta, Bryopnyta, and Prerrmopnyta described in the present volume, with the geological horizon, locality and Jocal of the type specimens. 1p SPECIES CONFINED TO ENGLAND. THALLOPHYTA. t Algites valdensis, sp. noy., Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) t Algites catenelloides, sp. nov., Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) CHAROPHYTA. t Chara Knowltoni, sp. nov., Fairlight Clays, Cliff End, near Hastings. (British Museum.) BRYOPHYTA. + Marchantites Zilleri, sp. noy., Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. Museum.) (British PLANTA INCERTA SEDIS. Specimen A. Fairlight Clays. Specimen B. Fairlight Clays. (British Museum.) (British Museum.) PTERIDOPHYTA. Equisetites Lyelli, Mant., Hastings - Sands, Pounceford. Eiquisetites Burchardti, Dunk., Hast- ings Sands, near Biickeburg, West- phalia. Equisetites Yokoyama, sp. nov., Fair- light Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.), Hast- ings Sands, Tilgate Forest. Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.), Bath- onian (?), Valley of Tetorigawa, Province Kaga, Japan. { Acrostichopteris Ruffordi, sp. nov., Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) Matonidium Gépperti (Ett.), Hast- ings Sands, Harrel, near Buiicke- burg, Westphalia. (Berlin.) Protopteris Witteana, Schenk, Hast- ings Sands, Stemmen, near Hann- over. (Collection of Obergerichts- director Witte, Hannover.) Ruffordia Géopperti (Dunk.), Hastings Sands, near Buckeburg. XXXVlii INTRODUCTION, PTERIDOPHYTA—continued. Ruffordia Gépperti, var. latifolia, Fair- light Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) + Cladophlebis longipennis, sp. Nnov., Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) Cladophlebis Albertsii (Dunk.), Hast- ings Sands, Dornberg, near Biele- feld, Westphalia. Cladophlebis Browniana (Dunk.), Hast- ings Sands, Siintel, Westphalia. Cladophlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.), Hast- ings Sands, Stemmen, near Hann- over. + Sphenopteris Fontainet, sp. noy., Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov., Fair- light Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) eichselia Manteili (Brong.), Hastings Sands, Tilgate Forest. Teniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk), Bohl- horst, near Minden. (Berlin.) t+ Teniopteris Beyrichti, var. superba, Fairlight Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) t+ Teniopteris Dawsoni, sp. noy., Fair- light Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) Sagenopterts Mantelli (Dunk.), Hast- ings Sands, Borglok, near Osna- briick. Microdictyon Dunkeri (Schenk), Hast- ings Sands, Osterwald, etc. (Berlin and Géttingen.) { Phyllopteris acutifolia, Fairlight Clays, (British Museum.) Dictyophyllum Roemert, Schenk, Hast- ings Sands, Obernkirchen. (Wiirz- burg.) Nathorstia valdensis, sp. nov., Fair- light Clays, Ecclesbourne. (British Museum.) Tempskya Schimper, Corda. (? Strass- burg.) sp. nov., Ececlesbourne. NOTES ON THE COLLECTIONS REFERRED TO IN PART I. Beckles Coll.—Some good specimens of Lquisetites and Weichselia from this Collection. Dawson Coll.—Several examples of Wealden plants from the neigh- bourhood of Hastings. Mantell Coll.—This Collection includes various plants from Tilgate Forest and other localities. Rufford Coll—The majority of the specimens described in this Catalogue were collected by Mr. Rufford from Wealden strata at Ecclesbourne and other localities near Hastings. With the exception of a few specimens presented by Mr. Rufford to the Museum in 1885, most of the plants have been acquired by purchase since that date. In addition to the specimens contained in the above collections there are a few which were presented by Mrs. Burnett and Mr, J. E. H. Peyton. 1 2 3 4, 5. 6 i 8. 9 LIST OF WOODCUTS. Chara Knowltont, sp. nov. Equisetites Yokoyama, sp. nov. . * and 3*, a ~ Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.) ” ” ” ” Matonidium Gépperti (Ett.) ” ” Cladophlebis Albertsit (Dunk.) Sphenopteris Fittont, sp. nov. ” ” Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.) ” ” Teniopteris Beyrichti (Schenk), var. superba Teniopteris Dawsont, sp. Nov. Dictyophyllum Roemeri, Schenk . ” ” PAGE. 13 33 33 50 50 52 66 67 a7 TILL TUL 120 120 127 128 141 141 WEALDEN PLANTS, Group THALLOPHYTA. A heterogeneous group of plants, many of which consist of a single cell, or of a thallus without any external differentiation into stem and leaf structures. Some of the higher members have, on the other hand, well-defined external and internal differen- tiation. The group is distinguished from the higher plants by the absence of true roots and vascular (conducting) tissue. In this respect it agrees with the Bryophyta; but in the latter the division of the vegetative body into stem and leaf structures is more pronounced, and the method of sexual reproduction and alternation of generations in the life-cycle are characters which separate the two groups. Class ALG, Plants provided with chlorophyll, and therefore capable of de- composing carbonic acid gas, assimilating the carbon and giving off oxygen, under the influence of sunlight. The vegetative body occurs in all forms, from that of a single cell to a complicated multicellular structure, made up of assimilating, conducting, pro- tective, and other tissues. The custom of naming the innumerable markings or impressions which constitute many of the so-called fossil A/ge@ by the same generic titles as are applied to recent seaweeds is to be strongly deprecated. Several observers have furnished ample proof of the exceedingly small value to be attached to the determinations of ‘algal’? impressions, and have thus given a wholesome check to the indiscriminate naming of these most doubtful fossils. The application of such terms as Caulerpites, Chondrites, etc., to markings on stone which have a greater or less resemblance to the recent genera Caulerpa, Chondria or Chondrus, is very likely to lead us astray, and to be especially misleading to those who are apt to draw conclusions as to the past history of living genera from the occurrence of their names in fossil lists. As an instance B DA ALGAE. of the misuse of one of the names, Caulerpites, the remarks of Murray on fossil Caulerpas are worthy of repetition. In his recent paper on an example of this genus from the Kimeridge clay he says '—‘‘I have examined nearly every species known to science of those (Caulerpa sp.) at present existing ...... of all the described fossil Caulerpe or Caulerpites of which I have seen specimens and figures, there is not one which might not with equal propriety be assigned a place elsewhere within or without the vegetable kingdom.” In looking at the specimens of Murray’s new species, Caulerpa Carruthers, one easily recognises the resemblance to the recent genus, and it is difficult to imagine to what other source such impressions could be referred. It is somewhat surprising, however, to find what deep and well-defined depressions have been left in the rock by this Oolitic seaweed. It is superfluous to point out what very little value we can attach to external form in many of the carbonaceous impressions on rock surfaces ; the same general habit of thallus being found in several recent genera, and indeed in different families. Unless, therefore, we are dealing with examples where the fossil clearly shows a habit strikingly similar in form to that of a well-marked and distinct recent genus, or with specimens exhibiting a well-preserved internal structure, or clear indications of characteristic reproductive organs, by making use of recent generic names we are rather hindering than advancing the knowledge of fossil phycology. For these reasons it is safer to be content with merely pointing out such living genera as approach most nearly in habit the algal- like impressions, and not commit ourselves to a doubtful and misleading affinity by referring the fossil forms to particular genera or families. With a view to having some general term which may serve as a provisional generic name for fossils, which in all probability come under the head of Algz, but which it is impossible with any degree of certainty to refer to a definite recent type, I propose to use the word Algites. Schlotheim,? and also Sternberg in his earlier writings, adopts the term -Algacites as a comprehensive title for all fossil seaweeds. In the later parts of the ‘‘Flora der Vorwelt” those ‘algal ” 1 Phycol. Mem. pt. i. 1892, p. 18. 2 Petrefactenkunde, p. 38. ALG. 3 remains, originally mentioned as species of the genus Algacites, are referred to various recent genera to which some resemblance in external form is considered to exist. The name Algacites has since been replaced by other terms, and appears to be no longer used as a general designation of fossil A/g@ of doubtful affinity. There is another term, Fucotdes, which has also been used by Sternberg and many other palobotanists in an equally wide sense, but such a name naturally suggests a certain resemblance to the recent genus Fucus, and is thus unsuitable if used in a more com- prehensive sense. This suggestion as to the use of a provisional and wide generic designation, such as Algites, may be considered a retrogressive step and likely to lessen our accurate knowledge of fossil Alye. If the data were generally adequate, and afforded sufficient indication of botanic affinity, any such term would be superfluous. When we consider how exceptional it is to find ourselves in a position to make definite statements, founded on satisfactory evidence, as to the family of Alge@ in which fossil forms should be placed, it must be admitted that we are lessening the possibilities of error by the return to more gencral and less definite terms. Botanists would naturally prefer to pass over such markings or casts which are too imperfect to admit of identification; but in spite of their apparent worthlessness from a botanical point of view, they may be of service to the geologist, and indeed the most fragmentary material may become important when more perfect specimens have been discovered. Thus it is better to place on record even those exceedingly doubtful fossils, and to adopt a provisional name in the hope that future discoveries may throw more light upon family or generic affinity. Generic names, such as Sphenopteris, Pecopteris, etc., of Brongniart have served a most useful purpose, and by degrees these are being replaced by more definite botanical titles as fertile specimens are discovered, and so afford clues as to natural affinity. As another instance of a convenient term we may mention Fachiopteris, which Williamson has applied to those fragments of fern petioles which it is not possible to refer to particular genera. 4 ALGITES. Genus ALGITES, gen. nov. A generic term for those fossils which in all probability belong to the class Alge, but which, by reason of the absence of reproductive organs, internal structure, or characters of a trust- worthy nature in the determination of affinity, cannot be referred with any degree of certainty to a particular recent genus or family. 1.—Algites valdensis, gen. et sp. nov. Type. Carbonaceous impression from Ecclesbourne, near Hastings (Fairlight clay). British Museum. Pl. I. Fig. 1. Registered number V. 2857. Thallus in the form of dichotomously divided branches radiating from a centre ; the branches terminating bluntly. The apparently dichotomous habit and the shape of the thallus at once suggest a resemblance to a number of algal genera, such as Chondrus, Zonaria, Dictyota, Rhodymenia, Nitophyllum, and others. Chondrus crispus (L.), Stackh., seems the most likely species among recent forms with which to compare the Wealden impressions; its more resistant fronds appear better adapted for preservation than the more delicate structures of hodymenia or Zonaria. So far as habit is concerned there is indeed a striking resemblance between Algites valdensis and Nitophyllum Bonnemaisont (Lyngb.)' as figured by Harvey ; but an equally strong resemblance may be traced on comparing the fossil specimens with examples of other recent genera. The extreme variability of Chondrus crispus 1s well known, and, as Mr. Murray pointed out to me, the broader type of thallus, such as we have in Algites valdensis, is indicative of quiet pools or gently flowing water, and in marked contrast to the narrow filiform branches of specimens growing in swiftly running currents. This difference of habit, and its close connection with the mode of life, is worth noting with reference to fossil forms, although in the present instance it would hardly be admissible to draw any conclusions from the breadth of the thallus branches when we are in doubt as to generic relationship. 1 Harvey, pl. xxiii. fig. 2. ’ to} ALGITES, 5 The genus Chondrites is suggestive of supposed affinity with Chondria, but the definition given by Brongniart! shows that it was intended for the reception of forms with cylindrical branches. In Schimper’s ‘“ Traité de Paléontologie” the genus Chondrides? is defined as comprising fossils with cylindrical fronds, often repeatedly dichotomising, and possessing characters united in Chondria and Furcellaria among living alge. Those fossil algze with flattened fronds are referred to the genus Spherococcides, a name previously used by Sternberg as Spherococcites, and defined by him as follows :—‘‘Frons subcoriacea, plana dichotoma vel pinnata aut filiformis.’’® Schimper includes this genus in the FJoridee, and considerably extends Sternberg’s definition. Seeing that the specimens from the Wealden rocks do not conform exactly to any of these definitions, and that such terms are, to some extent, associated with definite genera of recent seaweeds, it is better to make use of a wider designation, such as Algites. There are some few fossils previously described from Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks, to which Algites valdensis shows a certain amount of resemblance. Under the name Chondrides dolichophyllus Squinabol‘* has described a specimen from Liguria which has a general habit similar to the Wealden species, but differs in the narrower and longer branches. Heer’s figure of Gyrophyllites Theobaldi, Hr., in the Foss. fl. Helvet,? shows an analogous type of plant, but the generic name which he adopts was instituted by Glocker® in 1841 for a Cretaceous fossil which resembles the genus Caulerpa much more strongly than the flattened branching alge with which the present specimens agree. From the Jurassic rocks of East Yorkshire Leckenby’ has described a supposed alga, Fuceides erectus, which slightly resembles Algites valdensis; but the presence of a midrib and the delicate nature of the lateral parts of the branches are much more suggestive of Hepatic affinities. 1 Tableau, p. 9. See also Prodrome, p. 20, where the older name Gigartinites is defined. 2 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 168. 3 Flor. Vorwelt, fasc. vii. p. 28. * Contrib. Fl. foss. Liguria, vol. i, Tay. B, p. 11. DLA xdhye vies, ale 6 Nova Acta Ac. Ces. Leop.-Car. vol. xix. supp. ii. p. 322. 7 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx, p. 74, pl. xi. figs. 3a and 3b. 6 ALGITES. The Wealden fossils previously classed as A/g@ are not of such im- portance as to require serious attention. Dunker’s Confervites fissus’ is definitely stated by Schenk,’ after a careful examination of the type specimen, to be a rachis fragment of Onychiopsis (Sphenopteris) Mantelli (Brong.). The curious marking figured by Heer® from Almargem in Portugal as Zenidium lusitanicum, Hr., has little claim to be accepted as a fossil plant, so far at least as it is possible to judge from the plate. Ettingshausen‘ figures three species from the Wealden of Austria, Spherococcites chondrieformis, Ett., Confervites setaceus, Ett., and Sargassites Partschit, Ett., but these do not afford trustworthy evidence as to the existence of any particular family of A/ge. In the case of the English specimens there is an obvious objection to their reference to seaweeds in the fact that they are found in a supposed fresh-water rock ; this, however, does not appear to me at all a fatal objection. Marine alge are abundant enough at a river’s mouth, and, indeed, extend some distance from the place where the fresh water flows into the sea. In the delta deposits of the Wealden rivers there might easily be embedded the fronds of shallow-water seaweeds. There is a striking resemblance, too close to be entirely ignored, between some forms of the liverwort Reboulia hemispherica (L.), Radd., and the fossil which I have described as an alga. V. 2857. Pl. I. Figs. 1 and 2. One large and fairly perfect specimen of Algites valdensis; on the same slab is a smaller example of this species. The ends of the branches are in some cases more or less torn, but appear to have originally terminated bluntly. Fragments of Algites catenel- loides, sp. nov., scattered over the rock surface, as small branched structures. In addition to the species already mentioned, ef. Caulerpa arcuata,° Schimp., from the Flysch. Near Hastings. Beckles Coll. V. 2857a. The reverse piece of the previous specimen. Wealdenbildung, p. 1, pl. i. fig 1. Paleeontographica, vol. xix. p. 208. Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, pl. xx. Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, pl. iii, figs. 1-3 and 12. Trait. pal. vég. Atlas, pl. il. fig. 6. o ~ © me ALGITES. a V. 2857). In these specimens some of the branches show apparently perfect and blunt terminations. Fragments of Algites catenelloides. Near Hastings. Beckles Coll. V. 2857c. Portions of three specimens with the branching habit clearly seen. Traces of A. catenellocdes. Near Hastings. Beckles Coll. 2.—Algites catenelloides, gen. et sp. nov. Type. Small carbonaceous fragments on the same piece of rock with the type specimen of A. valdensis. British Museum. V. 2857. Pie Bis, and. 2. Small carbonaceous impressions of an apparently dichotomously branched thallus; the branches show indistinct signs of constrictions, suggesting a jointed structure, as in Catenella. These small branched fragments, which show in places what appear to be elliptical joints, as represented in Pl. I. Fig. 2a, are closely associated with the specimens of the previous species. I am indebted to Miss Barton for the suggestion that Catenella approaches most closely in habit to these delicate impressions ; the form of the thallus, both as regards the branching, and what appear to be elliptical members making up the branched axes, has a striking similarity in the fossil and recent specimens. Another fact of importance is the frequent association of Chondrus erispus and Catenella on our coasts at the present day. This occurrence, in such close proximity, of two fossil forms, whose external form is in close agreement with two recent genera, is of some value as confirmatory evidence in the question of botanic affinity. It must, at the same time, be candidly admitted that no great importance ought to be attached to identifications or comparisons based on mere impressions of external form. Vast numbers of impressions, animal trails and markings, which owe their origin to many and exceedingly diverse causes, have been assigned to that group of plants which has come to be regarded as the receptacle for all doubtful specimens which often afford little or no evidence of any vegetable nature whatsoever. The result of this has been to intensify that spirit of scepticism which ought always to influence the conduct of paleobotanists. There is, on the other hand, the danger of allowing ourselves to go too 8 ALGITES. far, and to be unduly prejudiced by such extreme expressions of opinion as those of Nathorst and his followers. In the present instance I do not wish to make a definite assertion that these two species of Wealden fossils are undoubtedly fragments of Chondrus and Catenella, but merely indicate such points of agreement as appear to exist. These pieces of Algites catenelloides, Mr. Murray reminds me, may also be compared to small Laurencias. V. 2857. Pl. I. Figs. 1 and 2. Several pieces of the branched thallus close to the specimens of Algites valdensis. V. 28575 and V. 2857%c. A few fragments associated with A. valdensis on the same piece of rock. Near Hastings. Beckles Coll. CHARACER. 9 Group CHAROPHYTA, Migula. Family CHARACE. The Characee or Stoneworts possess certain characters, both structural and biological, which denote a considerable advance in organization beyond the less complex Thallophyta. On the other hand there are sufficient differences between them and the Bryophyta to exclude them from that group. If we follow Migula, who has recently written an exhaustive account of the Charace@ for Rabenhorst’s ‘‘ Kryptogamen Flora,’’’ and adopt a new class division, Charophyta, we shall best represent the isolated position of these plants, and recognize that they occupy a place between the Thallophyta and the Bryophyta. Genus CHARA, Vaillant. L. [Linn. Hist. Acad. Gen. Plant, 1737, p. 326.] [Vaillant, Hist. Ac. R. Sci. Paris, 1719.] Vaillant? was the first to apply this generic term to the widely- spread Stoneworts; he enumerates nine species in an article published in 1719. The ‘fruits’? of Chara when first discovered in Tertiary rocks of the Paris basin were described by Lamarck® under the name Gyrogonites, and uot recognized as plant remains. In 1812 Léman‘ contributed a “note sur la Gyrogonite,” and pointed out the real nature of Lamarck’s fossils. It is convenient to apply the name Chara to those fossil remains which in all probability belong to the Characee. The material IVOle atc o3: 2 Hist. Ac. R. Sci. 1719; p. 17, pl. iii. 3 Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. vol. ix. pl. xv. fig. 7 and vol. xv. pl. xxiii. fig. 12. 4 Nouv. Bull. Sci. Paris, vol. iii. Ann. 5, No. 58, p. 108. In Zittel’s ‘‘ Handbuch der Palaeontologie,’’ Abth. ii. p. 43, the reference to Léman’s paper is given as the ‘‘ Annales”’ (vol. xv.) instead of Nouy. Bull. 10 CHARA. which usually supplies the evidence for the existence of these plants in rocks of various ages, is too imperfect to enable us to decide accurately whether the fragments should be referred to Chara, Nitella, or other genera of Characee. In view of this difficulty it is better, therefore, to describe all the Characeous “fruits” by the term Chara, if we regard the generic name, when applied to fossils, rather in the sense of a representative of a family than of the genus Chara as defined in the more recent works on this anomalous group. We frequently find the statement that the oldest known fossil Charas are those which have been found in beds of Muschelkalk age from Moscow; but in no case have I been able to discover a reference to the author who first noted this occurrence. It is by no means improbable that we must go much farther back in the geologic series to find the earliest traces of Chara “fruits.” In a paper in the American Journal of Science for 1889, Knowlton* gives three figures of some ‘‘ problematic organisms’? which it is difficult to believe can be anything but Chara oogonia. They are described as minute spirally-grooved bodies 1:50 mm.—1°80 mm. long, and 1:70 mm. broad, with a small aperture at one end; these bodies occur in large numbers in Lower Devonian-Carboniferous sandstones, and were mentioned in 1878 by Meek,” who spoke of them as showing all the external characters of Chara. Knowlton recognizes the strong likeness to this genus, but quotes various opinions which throw a good deal of doubt on the plant-nature of these small fossils. One objection is that the fossil bodies have on their surface the marks of more than five cells, the number making up the envelope of recent Chara oospores; and in the living forms these spirally-placed cells are twisted to the left, but in the fossils to the right; this, however, Knowlton suggests is ‘‘no vital objection to the supposition that this might have been an archaic or original type from which the more modern forms have developed.” ® Other arguments against their Characeous affinities are (i) the 1 T am indebted to Mr. Davies Sherborn for calling my attention to this paper and to Ulrich’s genus Moellerina mentioned below. Amer. Journ. ser. iii. vol. XXXVi. p. 202. * Report Geol. Surv. Ohio, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 219. 3 Loe. cit. p. 204. CHARA. yk large numbers uniformly scattered through the rock-mass, and (ii) their occurrence in strata formed in water of considerable depth. The generic name Cale’sphera was proposed by Williamson’ for certain small bodies common in Carboniferous Limestone rocks in the neighbourhood of Moel, North Wales; this name is applied to the American fossils by Knowlton with the specific designation C. Lemont, Knowl. From the same geological horizon Dawson? has described what he regarded as a foraminiferal species, Saccammina (Calcisphera) Eriana, Daws., and these, Brady suggested, probably belong to the same group as the forms figured by Knowlton. Dawson’s figures are not nearly so suggestive of Chara, as are those of Knowlton. Since Dawson named these Devonian fossils, Ulrich,’ in ignorance apparently of previous descriptions, instituted a new foraminiferal genus, Ioellerina, for their reception. From the Carboniferous Limestone of Gloucestershire Wethered‘ has recorded another form, which he places in Williamson’s genus Calcisphera, but with the belief that it is of a Protozoan nature. Enough has been said to show the possibility of our having to go back to Devonian strata for the earliest specimens of Chara. Without having seen Knowlton’s material, and being aware of the difficulties pointed out by experienced specialists, it must be admitted that the figured specimens exhibit a very marked resemblance to Characeous fruits : the reasons brought forward against accepting this resemblance as proof of identity do not appear by any means decisive. The number of enveloping cells need not be regarded as fixed and unalterable, and a similar occurrence of large numbers of Charas in the rock matrix may be noted in the case of the Paris Basin fresh-water rocks of Eocene age. In most cases the plants are represented by the so-called ‘‘ fruits,” which are simply the oospores enclosed in the spirally arranged cells of the envelope, or, not infrequently, without the encasing cells. Remains of the vegetative organs are rare, and such as have been described in a fossil state are of little or no interest from a botanical point of view. 1 phil. Trans. 1880, p. 521. 2 Canad. Nat. ns. vol. x. p. 1. 3 Geol. Mag. 1886, n.s. Dec. 3, vol. iii. p. 374. 4 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xliv. Proce. p. 91. 12 CHARA. In rocks of the Jurassic system several species have been dis- covered. Saporta,! in his important contributions to the Jurassic botany of France, institutes a new species, Chara Bleichert, from Oxfordian rocks at Cajase in the Départment Lot. Heer? named aspecies, Chara Jaccardi, Hr., from the Purbeckian of Villers-le-lac and other localities in the Canton Neuchatel; this species is also recorded by Saporta,® on the authority of Giradot, from the same geological horizon in the neighbourhood of Pont de la Choux. Another species, Chara Maillardi, Sap., has recently been described from this district by Saporta,* but his figures show the spiral markings of the encasing cells almost longitudinally placed, and, indeed, the drawings are by no means convincing as regards botanic affinity. Heer’s species, Chara Jaccardi, Hr., is quoted by Schenk? from beds which may be of Wealden age, at Locle in the Canton Neuenburg. In Britain we have a reference by Phillips® to the occurrence of Chara in the ‘‘ Upper part of the Wealden deposits” of Swanage Bay, Isle of Purbeck; the same genus is included in the list of Isle of Wight fossils in Bristow’s Memoir’ on the Geology of that island, from a locality between Brixton and Atherfield. So far as I am able to discover, no specific name has been applied to these English Mesozoic Charas. In the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street, there is a specimen showing a number of hollow casts of the Isle of Wight Charas; these should probably be included in the species Chara Knowltoni, sp. nov. A few of the more clearly preserved casts show that there were about 10-12 almost horizontal lines on the surface of the oogonia. The casts are somewhat longer and narrower than the impressions from Ecclesbourne, but this may be due to the fact that the latter have been more crushed, and have, therefore, an apparently greater breadth. 1 Pal. Frang. sér. ii. vol. i. p. 214, pl. ix. figs. 8 and 9. 2 Urwelt, 1879, p. 176. 8 Pal. Franc. sér. ii. vol. i. p. 216, pl. ix. figs. 12 and 13. 4 Ibid. ii. vol. iv. p. 499, pl. Ixxii dis. 5 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 204, pl. xxv. fig. 1. ® Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 1858, p. 46. 7 Mem. Geol. Sury. 1889, p. 258. CHARA. 13 1.—Chara Knowltoni, sp. nov. Type. Imperfectly preserved oogonia discovered by Mr. Rufford at Cliff End, near Hastings. British Museum. Registered number V. 1070a. Woodcut, Fig. 1. Oogonia broadly oval in form, the largest specimens about ‘5m. long and approximately the same breadth at the broadest part. Surface marked with eleven or twelve ridges, arranged in the form of a flattened spiral very little removed from the horizontal. Fig. 1.—Oogonium of Chara Knowltoni, sp. nov. (V. 1070a), x 30. Each specimen is covered by a thin and brittle layer of car- bonaceous matter, and in all probability the ridged surface is that of the enveloping cells, the substance of which is left as a black film moulded on the ridged and furrowed surface of the oospore. The examples on which this species is founded are confessedly meagre, and hardly such as to warrant the institution of an additional species. Such characters, however, as are available indicate very clearly marked differences from the Wealden species previously described. It may, therefore, serve a useful purpose to designate the British specimens by a new name, provided the fact be kept in mind that the material hitherto found in the English beds is not at all adequate for the purposes of thorough specific definition. I have ventured to name this species after Mr. Knowlton, who has recently added to our knowledge of fossil Charas. The present species differs from the other Wealden form, Chara Jaccardi, in haying many more surface ridges, and in its more globular and less elongated shape. The globular form may, however, as previously suggested, be, to a certain extent, the result of flattening. A specimen figured by Squinabol! from Tertiary beds of Liguria, 1 Contrib. Fl. foss. Liguria, vol. i. p. 7, pl. xii. figs 1 and 2. 14 CHARA. and referred by him to Chara Meriani, A. Br., agrees fairly closely with our Wealden form. Another species, Chara Stantoni,! recently described by Knowl- ton from the Upper Cretaceous Bear-River formation of North America, agrees in the large number of almost horizontal ridges _ with Chara Knowltoni, but differs in shape. Among English Tertiary species there is a distinct similarity to a specimen of Chara medicaginula, figured by Lyell,’ showing the ‘‘nut”’ enclosed in the “integument.” The inner part (‘‘nut’’) has a close resemblance to the present species. The common recent species Chara fetida, A. Br., possesses oogonia not far removed in appearance from the Wealden type, but, as Lyell points out in reference to Tertiary species, the fossil oogonia are more globular than those of living British species. V.1070a. Woodcut, p. 13, Fig. 1. Some of the oogonia are fairly well preserved and show the characteristic markings clearly. Near Hastings. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1885. V. 1070. Several oogonia scattered in the matrix. Near Hastings. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1885. V. 2282. A cluster of oogonia closely crowded together, with odd ones scattered about. The spherical form well shown, but markings indistinct. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2808. Several specimens in an argillaceous matrix, some with the surface markings fairly clear. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Bot. Gazette, vol. xviii. p. 141. 2 Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. ii. 1826, p. 90, pl. xiii. fig. 3. BRYOPHYTA. 15 Group BRYOPHYTA (MUSCINEZ). There is a well-marked and characteristic alternation of genera- tions in the life-history of the members of this group; the Oophyte generation (moss plant) being the more conspicuous of the two. No vascular tissue, and no true roots. Our knowledge of fossil mosses and liverworts is lamentably deficient, and, indeed, the evidence upon which many of the so- called fossil mosses have been named is far from satisfactory. Scanty as the material is on which the geological history of these plants is founded, we are not justified in assuming that they are unrepresentedin pre-Tertiary times.' The earliest representative of the Iusci to which reference need be made is one which was described in the ‘‘ Comptes Rendus”’ for 1885? by Zeiller and Renault from the Coal-Measures of Commentry; this species, Museites polytrichaceus, has since been figured by the same authors in their work on the Commentry fossil flora. As usually happens in the case of fossil mosses, there are no signs of a capsule. The figures of this carboniferous species are certainly much more suggestive of the vegetative parts of a moss than any other plant. M. Bescherelle suggested the two recent genera, Polytrichum and Rhizogonium, as the nearest recent forms as regards the characters of the vegetative parts. In connection with Paleozoic mosses the comparison made by Solms-Laubach is worth noting‘; he compares Lycopodites Maakit from the Coal-Measures of North America, and Z. uncinatus, also of Carboniferous age, to certain of the recent Hypnee. Passing on to the Mesozoic system, we have further evidence for the existence of this group of plants, as Starkie Gardner has shown in his paper ‘‘On Mesozoic Angiosperms.”’® He had occasion to 1 Bower. Annals Bot. vol. v. p. 130. 2 Vol. c. p: 660. 3 Fl. foss. Houill. Commentry, pl. xli. figs. 2-4, 4 Fossil Botany, p. 186. 5 Geol. Mag. 1886, p. 203. 16 BRYOPHYTA. examine a specimen originally described and figured by Buckman! under the name Waadita, from the plant bed at the base of the Lias, near Bristol; his inspection of this supposed monocotyledon led him to the conclusion that Buckman’s plant was probably closely allied to the common fresh-water moss Fontinalis. In this opinion he was supported by Messrs. Carruthers and Murray, of the British Museum, to whom the specimen was shown. In a footnote to Gardner’s paper the important fact is added that a capsule had been sent to him by Mr. Brodie from the same locality. The argument advanced by Heer? in the ‘‘ Urwelt der Schweiz” for the existence of Triassic mosses is well known. In describing some Lias insects from the rocks of Schambelen, Heer notes the absence of fossil fungi in these rocks, but goes on to say that their presence may be inferred from the occurrence of certain genera of beetles. The same kind of reasoning is made use of in the case of mosses; four species of Byrrhus, found in the Schambelen Lias, are supposed to warrant the assumption that mosses were also in existence, because at the present day the nearest living allies of those Schambelen beetles derive their food from mosses. Such reasoning can hardly be accepted in the accumulation of reliable evidence for the geological history of particular classes of plants. A Cretaceous moss has been figured by Ettingshausen and Debey from the Aachen and Maestricht rocks under the name Juscites cretaceus*®; the figure of the type specimen shows a very small and imperfect fragment. The plant fragments figured by Roemer,‘ and described by him as JDuscites imbricatus and I. falcifolius, from the North German Wealden beds, are most probably pieces of coniferous branches, and certainly of no value as records of Wealden mosses. The specimen figured by Dunker, from the same district, as Juscites Sternbergianus, is in all probability a fragment of a coniferous branch. From the Tertiary rocks several authors have described species of Jusecites, but in nearly all cases the determinations are based solely on fragments of vegetative 1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. vi. p. 418. 2 Urwelt, 1879, p. 99. 3 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. mat. nat. Cl. vol. xvii. p. 186, pl. i. fig. 6. 4 Verstein. Ool. Geb. p. 10, pl. xvii. fig. 2. 5 Wealdenbildung, p. 20, pl. vii. fig. 10. HEPATIC. 7 organs, and these alone are not often trustworthy guides: there is an exception in the case of Gymnostomum ferrugineum,' figured by Ludwig, where the capsule is preserved with portions of the moss- plant stem. The paleobotany of the Hepatice is no more satisfactory. Of Paleozoic liverworts there appear to be no records preserved. A single specimen of a plant with dichotomously lobed flat fronds has been described by Fliche and Bleicher as a new species of Marchantia,? M. oolithicus ; it was discovered in Lower Oolite rocks in the neighbourhood of Nancy. The authors of the species point out that such forked laminar structures may be referred to certain lichens, alge or liverworts; in this case the latter class is the one chosen. In speaking of fossil alge reference was made to Fucordes erectus, Leck., from the Yorkshire Oolite, as being possibly a liverwort and not an algal impression. The Tertiary Hepatice are more satisfactory, notably some figured by Saporta* from the Paris Basin showing distinct male receptacles. From the Baltic Amber Goppert* has determined various examples of the Bryophyta, and instituted the generic term Jungermannites to denote the existence of certain supposed hepatics which resemble the Jungermannia rather than the Marchantia section. Class HEPATIC. The vegetative dorsiventral body is in the form of a thalloid creeping structure (Thalloid Liverworts), or a creeping stem with thin leaves which are always without a midrib (Foliose Liver- worts). Protonema feebly developed. Order MARCHANTIEZ. Vegetative body of the thalloid type, with or without a midrib ; branches of the ‘thallus ’’ more or less clearly forked. 1 Paleontographica, vol. viii. p. 160, pl. Ixiii. fig. 9. 2 Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy, sér. ii. vol. v. pp. 67, 68, fig. 1. 3 Mém. Soc. Géol. France, sér. ii. vol. viii. p. 289. * Bernstein, p. 113. 18 MARCHANTITES. Genus MARCHANTITES, Brongniart. [Tableau, p. 12.] Vegetative body of laminar form, with apparently dichotomous branches, and agreeing in habit with the recent thalloid Hepatice, as represented by the genus JJarchantia. Brongniart’s term Iarchantites is, in the present instance, pre- ferable to UMarchantia; the latter would suggest a fossil which might reasonably be regarded as a species of the recent genus ; the former has a wider meaning, and, if used in the broad sense indicated in the above definition, would refer rather to a type of vegetative body than to a special genus. 1.—Marchantites Zeilleri, sp. nov. Type. Specimen in the British Museum. V. 23830. Discovered by Mr. Rufford. Pl. I. Fig. 3. “Frond” repeatedly divided by forked branching, apparently dichotomous. Average breadth about 3mm.; the branches have a distinct and fairly broad midrib, and on either side of the central axis are thin and filmy. I have named this Wealden species after Professor Zeiller, of Paris, who is one of the authors of the oldest known species of moss, and whose labours in palsobotany have done so much to establish the subject on a more scientific foundation. In habit and size this species very closely resembles Marchantva Chenopoda, Linn., from tropical America. No other genus, so far as resemblance in habit is concerned, agrees so nearly with the Wealden form as DMarchantia, but without trace of either male or female receptacle, or other aids to identification, no great stress should be laid on the comparison. ‘There is the same branching habit and distinct midrib in Leckenby’s species, Fucovdes erectus. In both the midrib is clearly shown by the much darker colour of the median portion of the thalloid impressions; the thinner lateral parts in the present species appear almost like brown stains on the matrix. A somewhat similar form, but without any striking resemblance, and, indeed, of much smaller size, is figured by Debey 1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 74, pl. xi. fig 3. INCERTZ SEDIS. 19 and Ettingshausen, under the name Halyserites gracilis,’ from the Cretaceous of Aachen and Maestricht. This so-called alga might also be compared to a fragment of a filmy fern frond. V. 2330. Pl. I. Fig. 3. This specimen shows very clearly the habit of the plant, and especially the marked contrast between the sharply defined black midrib and the light brown impressions of the more delicate lateral portions. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 23302. Practically identical with V. 28380. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2334. Several smaller pieces of the branched thalloid body : on the same slab of ironstone are fragments of Sphenopteris Fontainet, sp. nov. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. PLANTA INCERTZ SEDIS. In Pl. I. Figs. 7 and 8, two specimens are represented which it is difficult to refer, with any degree of certainty, to definite genera, but which may be briefly described here as possibly referable to the Pteridophyta. Specimen A. PI. I. Fig. 7. V. 2370. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. The figure shows a clearly preserved and sharply cut black structure projecting in a button-like form from the rock matrix. In the centre is a distinct depression, and from this extend numerous radiating ridges which curve downward at the periphery ; these ridges appear to be the projecting midribs of leaf-segments, which terminate acutely, and are fused together laterally in the form of a circular sheath. I am inclined to regard the specimen as an Equisetaceous leaf-sheath, but prefer to leave it unnamed in the hope of fresh discoveries affording more definite evidence as to its botanical position. 1 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. xvi. 1859, p. 61, pl. i. figs. 1-2. 20 INCERTZ SEDIS. A very similar fossil has been figured by Fontaine from the Potomac beds of Baltimore as ‘‘an undetermined plant”’;! his specimen is smaller, but very similar in form; it shows a circular orifice in the centre, a character not noticed in the English example. The Potomac fossil is described as more like a leaf- sheath of yuwisetum than anything else. Ettingshausen? has figured a small object from the Wealden of Zobing, described as a ‘* Patellenahnliches Gebilde,’”? which may be compared to our figured specimen. In the genus Phyllotheca there is a certain amount of resemblance to the present specimen in the form of the leaf-sheaths. Zigno’s figures of Phyllotheca equisetiformis, Zig.,? represent stems with nodes clasped by leaf-sheaths deeply divided into acute and slightly incurved segments. In the case of a detached leaf we should expect, however, to have a circular structure with a central aperture. In a leaf-sheath of Phyllo- theca Schtschuraroskii, Schmal.,4 from the Russian Jurassic rocks, there is also a certain similarity as regards size and general form. Specimen B. Pl. I. Figs. 8 and 9. V. 2328. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. This specimen consists of a repeatedly branched structure bear- ing small and closely arranged leaves; the axes of the branches are distinguished in several places by the presence of a white mineralization substance in the form of fine longitudinal lines, suggestive of a slender and woody central cylinder; the general habit 1s somewhat stiff; length 3 em. Mr. Carruthers, to whom I showed the specimen, recognized a resemblance to the sporangiferous branches of some of the Lycopo- dium Phlegmaria group,’ and pointed out the possibility that the small carbonaceous patches shown in Fig. 9 in the axis of the left- hand leaves may be the remains of sporangia. In addition to these black patches the enlarged piece of a branch (Fig. 9) shows the pointed and slightly falcate leaves, which appear to occur in two 1 Potomac Flora, p. 276, pl. clxxiii. figs. 11 and 11a. 2 Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 32, pl. iii. fig. 20. 3 Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. i. p. 60, pl. viii. fig. 5a, ete. 4 Schmalhausen. Mém. Ac. Imp. St. Pétersbourg, sér. vii. vol. xxvii. No. 4, 1879, pl. vi. fig. 3. 5 Baker. Fern-allies, p. 19. INCERTZ SEDIS. 21 alternating rows. There is certainly a marked resemblance between some specimens of fertile branches in members of the Lycopodium Phlegmaria group and the Wealden fragment; but the nature of the fossil renders it unwise to give expression to this resemblance by adopting the name Lycopodites. The occurrence of this genus in Wealden rocks has previously been hinted by Mantell!; he includes ? Lycopodites in a list of fossil plants from Tilgate Forest. Nathorst? figures and describes a specimen as ‘undoubtedly Lycopodiaceous,”” from a Japanese locality which has afforded a flora with a distinct Wealden facies. In Saporta’s recent list of plants from the Wealden of Portugal* there are included certain species of Lycopodiaceous plants. At first sight the specimen suggests, as Mr. Rufford pointed out, a moss-like plant. So far as I have been able to determine there are no species of true mosses which show any close similarity in habit to the fossil, but in the Hepatice there are some forms in which the resemblance is distinctly close, ¢.g. the genus Porella. A strong argument, however, against adopting such a generic term as Jungermannites is the indication of a woody axis, to which reference has already been made. Finally the possibility must be noted that the real affinities of specimen B may eventually prove to be with the Conifere. Cf. Pl. I. Fig. 8, with Heer’s figures of Widdringtonites Reichit (Ett.) * and Juniperus macilenta (Hr.),° both from the Cretaceous of Greenland; also Lesquereux’s figure of Glyptostrobus gracillimus,’ Lesqx., another Cretaceous conifer. 1 Trans. Geol. Soe. ser. ii. vol. iii. 1835, p. 213. 2 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. 1890, p. 50, pl. ii. fig. 3. 3 Compt. Rend. vol. exili. 1891, p. 249. 4 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. vii. 1883, pl. lii. fig. 5. 5 Ibid. vol. vi. 1882, pl. xxxv. fig. 10. 6 Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. vol. vi. 1874, pl. i. fig. 11. Po? EQUISETACE. Group PTERIDOPHYTA. (VASCULAR CRYPTOGAMS.) Plants with a highly organized sporophyte generation, possessing true vascular (conducting) tissue, and true roots. With the exception of Jséetes, Botrychium, Helminthostachys, and, according to recent observations, Hguisetum,! there is no secondary thickening in the vegetative structures of the living genera included in this group. Among fossil genera secondary thickening appears to have been common. The Pteridophyta differ from the Bryophyta in the greater advance in physiological division of labour as expressed in the more com- plete differentiation of tissues. The presence of a true vascular system and the possession of true roots at once separate the Pteridophyta from the next lower group of plants. In the higher group the sporophyte generation is the more conspicuous ; in the Bryophyta the gametophyte (oophyte) generation is more prominent. Class EQUISETIN &. Leaves in whorls and small in proportion to the stem, in the form of sheaths, with long or short teeth, clasping the stem at the nodes. : The fertile branches terminate in spikes formed of leaves modified in the form of peltate scales arranged in close whorls with sporangia attached to their inner surface. Family EQUISETACE A. Contains the single recent genus “guwisetum, and the fossil species included under the generic name Lguisetites. 1 Cormack, Annals Bot. vol. vii. 1893, p. 63. EQUISETITES. 23 Genus EQUISETITES, Sternberg. [Flor. Vorwelt, vii. 1838, p. 43.] A general name applied to such fossil remains as closely resemble the recent genus Eyuisetum. Brongniart,' Schimper, and other authors use the term Hyuesetum for the fossil representatives of that genus; as the former has pointed out, there are several species which from the character of the fertile as well as the sterile stem structures cannot be separated from the recent genus. So far as we are able to judge, this appears to be the case; but as yet we are in the dark as to the histological structure of the fossil forms, and, with such material as paleobotanists have to deal with, there cannot be any certainty as to the exact connection between the living and fossil equise- taceous plants. In addition to this necessary imperfection of the fossil material, there is another argument in favour of some slight distinction in the name used for species other than those now in existence, namely the fact that we thus have a convenient distin- guishing mark between recent species of Lguisetwm and their geological representatives. Owing to the absence of internal structure in the fossil repre- sentatives of the Hyutsetacee our exact knowledge of the ancestral forms of Equisetum leaves much to be desired. Graf Solms has called attention to this fact in his ‘‘ Fossil Botany,’’? and he gives a short critical account of the geological history of the sole surviving genus. A few examples have been recorded from the Coal-Measures of different countries, but as a rule there is very little to be learnt from them. Without attempting any review of the older equi- setaceous plants, it is of interest to note that there appears to be some evidence for the existence of this family in Britain during the Coal-Measures period. Kidston* has recently figured and described part of a sporangiferous spike which seems to resemble the fertile apex of a recent Eyguisetum stem. This new species from the Coal-Measures of Yorkshire is named Equisetum Hemingway. 1 Brongniart, Tableau, p. 46. 3 is WG. 3 Annals, vol. ix. ser. vi. 1892, p. 138. A Permian species, Z. Vawolyi, has recently been recorded by Professor Zeiller from Commentry. (Saporta, Rev. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, pl. ii. p. 179.) 24 EQUISETITES. So far as facts are available, we are warranted in the conclusion that the species of the genus Hyuisetum, from the Upper Carboni- ferous period to the present day, appear to have undergone but little change in habit and external appearance; the most striking difference being one of size. In the Triassic period, when Equisetites seems to have reached its maximum development, we find an abundance of very large stems; from that time the size gradually decreases, and, in the Wealden strata, the few species that are known approach much more nearly in size to the living members of the family. 1.—Equisetites Lyelli, Mantell. 1833. Hquisetum Lyelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 245, figs. 1-3. 1845. Eguisetites Lyelli, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 60. 1848. Equisetites Lyelli, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl. p. 464. 1849. Equwisetum Lyelli, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107. 1854. Equisetites Lyelli, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 8. 1869. Hquisetwm Lyelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 265, and yol. lil. p. 453. 1871. Hquisetum Lyelli, Schenk, Paleeontographica, vol. xix. p. 207, pl. xxii. figs. 10-18. 1882. Hquisetites Lyelli, Renault, Cours bot. foss. vol. 1. p. 150. 1889. Equisetum Lyelli, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 65, pl. i. fig. 7; pl. 1. figs. 4 and 5. Type. Small pieces of stem of an average thickness of 1°5 em. ; internodes about 2°5 cm. in length, the leaf-sheaths divided into numerous linear acuminate teeth. The surface of the internodes shows faintly marked and numerous longitudinal lines. Single branches at the nodes of frequent occurrence. Sporangia and spores unknown. The majority of the specimens in the British Museum are pieces of stems showing the leaf-teeth projecting some distance above each node, and also in a few instances there is a thin brown film on the surface of the internodes. This brown surface layer is all that remains of the plant tissues, and probably is simply the remains of the epidermal layer of cells; it is well shown in specimens V. 59 and V. 2864. EQUISETITES, 25 V. 59. Plot) Bigs 5. A good specimen, about 12 cm. in length; leaves and nodes well shown, also the base of a lateral branch. St. Leonards. Presented by Mrs. Burnett, 1882. V. 59a. This small piece is probably the apical bud of a stem or branch. Cf. 3601. St. Leonards. Presented by Mrs. Burnett, 1882. V. 710. Weli-preserved stem; shows three internodes 2—2°5 cm. in length; leaves distinct. St. Leonards. Dawson Coll. V. 2284. Possibly a badly preserved leaf-sheath of Z. Lyell. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2617. Pieces of the larger kind of stem with shorter inter- nodes. Cf. 8383, etc. In this specimen the leaves are distinct and appear to agree with those of the Z. Lyelli type. At one or two of the nodes where the leaf-sheaths are less complete there is a marked resemblance to £. Phillipsii,) Schimper. Cf. also L.. lusitanicum,? Heer. Some of these larger examples come very near to the figure of Calamites arenaceus minor, Jaeger,® a species of Lquisetites from the Stuttgart sandstone. Sussex. Beckles Coll. V. 2780a. Probably the tapering end of a stem showing over- lapping leaves. Cf. Mantell’s figure‘ showing a similar tapering stem. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 2864. Several specimens with good nodes and leaves; also branch scars. Pounceford, Sussex. Beckles Coll. 2867. This piece of stem shows five internodes, measuring 10 cm. in length and 1°5 cm. in breadth. One distinct branch scar, with traces of others. Imperfect impressions in some places of the long leaf-teeth. Cf. Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxii. figs. 10-11. Mantell Coll. 3579. An unusually long piece of a branch attached to the stem. Mantel Coll. 1 Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxii. figs. 6-9. ? Heer, Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, pl. viii. figs. 1-6. 3 Jaeger, Pflanzenverstein. Stuttgart, pl. vi. fig. 2. * Geol. S.E. England, p. 245. 26 EQUISETITES. 3582. 12:5 cm. long. Average length of internodes 2 cm., breadth 1:2 cm. Mantell Coll. 3591. Badly preserved and crushed stem, shows four and a half internodes. One branch. Cf. Schenk, Palseontographica, vol}. xix: pl. xxiv. fig..12: Mantell Coll. 3594. Stem showing three nodes, sheathing leaves, and one branch. Mantell Coll. - 3598. Small piece, with one node and leaf-teeth particularly well shown, also a branch; almost identical with Schenk’s fig. 11, pl. xxii. Paleontographica, vol. xix. Mantell Coll. 3601. This small specimen may be merely a fragment crushed at one end, but possibly it is the apical termination of a branch. The long linear leaf-teeth are distinctly seen and appear to be closely pressed against the apical bud. Cf. Hyuisetites Minstert, Schimp.! Mantell Coll. 8383. Internodes about 2°2 cm. long and 2°2 em. broad. This specimen, also 10,847, 12,3899 and others, has shorter internodes than most examples of the species; the leaves are less clearly seen, but faintly indicated here and there. There is a distinct similarity, as regards the diameter of the stem and the length of internodes, between such specimens as this and the figure of guisetites Phillipsii, Schimp., given by Schenk,? but I am unable to fix upon any definite characteristic which would warrant the removal of these larger forms to another species. Pounceford. Jantell Coll. 12,399. Probably the same species. 14:5 cm. long; leaves not clearly defined. Pounceford. Mantel Coll. 12,403. Internodes 2°5 cm. in length, 1:8 em. broad. Im- perfectly preserved. Pounceford. Mantell Coll. 12,406. 11°5 cm. long. Impressions in the places of the characteristic leaves. Pounceford. Mantell Coll. 39,123. 6°5 cm. in length. Crushed and very imperfect. At two of the nodes there are irregular projections, with their surfaces exhibiting a rough warty appearance; in all probability 1 Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. Atlas, pl. viil. fig. 4. * Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxii. EQUISETITES. 27 the result of iron pyrites. At first sight these rough projecting parts remind one of Phyllotheca sporangia, but in reality they have no real connection with the stem. Pounceford. Mantell Coil. The following registered specimens are smaller, or less worthy of note :—V. 2318, Rufford Coll.; 3575-3578, 3580, 3585-3590, 3992, 3593, 3595-3597, 3599, 3600, 3602-3606, 10,835-10,839, 10,847, 38,375, Mantel! Coll. 2,.—Equisetites Burchardti, Dunker. 1824. ? Carpolithus Mantelli, Stokes and Webb, Trans. Geol. Soc. vol. i. ser. ii. p. 423, pl. xlvi. figs. 3 and 4, and pl. xlvii. fig. 1. 1833. ? Carpolithus Mantelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 245, and fig. p. 246. 1846. Eguisetites Burchardti, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 2, pl. v. fig. 7. 1846. Carpolithus cordatus, Dunker, loc. cit. p. 22, pl. ii. figs. 7 and 10. 1846. Carpolithus Huttoni, Dunker, loc. cit. p. 22, pl. 1. fig. 8. 1846. Carpolithus Lindleyanus, Dunker, loc. cit. p. 22, pl. ii. fig. 7. 1846. ? Carpolithus Mantelli, Dunker, Joc. cit. p. 21, pl. ii. fig. 9. 1848. ? Carpolithus Mantelli, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencel. p. 239. 1848. Carpolithus Brongniarti, Bronn, loc. cit. p. 239. 1848. Carpolithus cordatus, Bronn, loc. cit. p. 239. 1848. Carpolithus Huttoni, Bronn, loc. cit. p. 239. 1848. Carpolithus Lindleyanus, Broun, loc. cit. p. 239. 1849. Lquisetites Burchardti, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107. 1850. Hguisetites Burchardti, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 59. 1851. Lquisetites Burchardti, Ettingshausen, Haidinger Abh. vol. iv. Abth. i. p. 66. 1852. Hquisetites Burchardti, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. p. 10, pl. i. figs. 3 and 4. 1854. ? Carpolithes Mantelli, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 5. 1869. Equisetites Burchardti, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 264. 1870-72. Cycadinocarpus ? cordatus, Schimper, loc. cit, vol. ii. p. 211. 1870-72. Cycadinoearpus? Huttoni, Schimper, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 210. 1870-72. Cycadinocarpus Lindleyanus, Schimper, Joe. cit. vol. i. p. 240. 1870-72. ? Cycadinoearpus Mantelli, Schimper, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 211, Atlas, pl. Ixxii. fig. 21. 1871. Lguwisetites Burehardti, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 206, pl. xxii. figs. 1-5. 1874. Equisetites Burchardti, Schimper, Joc. cit. vol. iii. p. 453. 1878. Eguisetites Burchardti, Dixon, Geol. Sussex, edit. iii. p. 282. 1882. LHquisetites Burchardti, Renault, Cours bot. foss. vol. ii. p. 151. 1889. Hquisetites Burchardti, Bristow, Mem. Geol. Sury. p. 288. 1890. Hquisetites Burchardti, Saporta, Compt. Rend. vol. cxi. p. 250. 28 EQUISETITES. Type. Pieces of stem with well-marked dentate sheaths. The species is thus defined by Dunker: ‘‘ Lquisetites caule tenui multi- articulato, striato, striis subacutis viiii—x. aeque distantibus, vaginis tumidis lanceolato-dentatis.”’ The specimen figured by Dunker has much shorter internodes and more distinct sheathing leaves than most of the English examples. Schenk’s figures afford a much better idea of the species as represented in the National Collection; long slender internodes with tubers attached to the nodes. The characters shown in Dunker’s figures are those of subaerial branches, but most of Schenk’s specimens are underground stem structures. Lquisetites Burchardti, Dunk., is chiefly conspicuous by the tubers which occur in large numbers, both isolated and attached to the stem. The oval bodies figured by Stokes and Webb under the name Carpolithus Mantelli have been included by later writers under Dunker’s species. In the above list of synonyms I have given expression to a feeling of uncertainty as to the correctness of this view ; the enlarged drawing given by Stokes and Webb! shows certain characters suggestive of something quite distinct from an Equisetaceous tuber. If their figure be an accurate representation of the fossil, its true position must be regarded as somewhat doubtful. The other species of Carpolithus figured by Dunker are referred to Eguwisetites Burchardti, with the exception of Carpolithus sertum,* which is probably identical with 4. Yokoyama, sp. nov., and C. Brongniarti,® which represents a tuber much larger than #. Burchardti, and somewhat different inform. In the figures of C. cordatus the slightly cordate tuber is attached to a node of the slender stem of #. Burchardti. Dunker’s various species of Carpolithus were transferred by Schimper to the genus Cycadino- carpus, indicative of Cycadean affinities. In 1871 Schenk figured some examples of Lquisetites Burchardti, which showed conclusively the true nature of most of the various forms of tubers previously classed with fossil fruits. He pointed out how the variations in size and shape, as represented in Dunker’s figures, could be easily explained by the effects of pressure and the manner of preservation. If we examine these figures carefully it appears improbable that 1 Loe. cit. pl. xlvii. fig. 1. ? Wealdenbildung, p. 22, pl. vii. fig. 3. 3 Ibid. p. 22, pl. ii. figs. 6 and 6a. EQUISETITES. 29 they can all be referred to one species; many of them were no doubt unnecessarily separated by Dunker, but in the case of Carpolithus sertum and C. Brongniarti we do not recognize the characteristic form of Lyuisetites Burchardti tubers, nor is it easy to account for the differences by such causes as Schenk has suggested. In the third edition of Dixon’s ‘‘ Geology of Sussex,” Carruthers! suggests that the tubers of #. Burchardti from the Isle of Wight may be identical with Mantell’s ‘‘seed-vessels of estiacea,” described in the ‘‘ Wonders of Geology,’* from the Heathfield ironstone. Schenk? refers to Ettingshausen’s figures of Lguisetites Burchardti and Carpolithus Lindleyanus as representing respectively a Calamitean branch, and a fragment of Walchia. The figures of the former appear to me, however, to have been correctly named by Ettingshausen ; the Carpolithus may be a fragment of Walchia, as Schenk suggests. Fontaine’s species, Hyuisetum virginicum,* from the Potomac beds of America, agrees fairly closely with E. Burchardti. Although I have not included in the above synonymy a Japanese species, 4. Ushimarense,® recently described by Yokoyama from beds which he speaks of as Jurassic, it is by no means certain that his specimens should not be referred to the European species. His description is very meagre, and the figured specimens not particularly well preserved, but there is an obvious resemblance to E. Burchardti; this is admitted by Yokoyama, who points to the similarity in the form of the tubers. His short account of the branches agrees with that given by Schenk for the North German specimens, e.g. cf. Yokoyama’s fig. 3, pl. xi. and Schenk, pl. xxi. fig. 1. In spite of the close resemblance, it is probably better to retain Yokoyama’s new name; the slight difference in shape is not of great specific value, but it is the chief feature afforded by the imperfect materials. Further discoveries in the Japanese plant beds may establish a specific distinction on a firmer basis, or, on the other hand, may afford stronger evidence of specific identity. 1 p. 282. 2 Edit. iii. p. 372. 3 Paleontographica, p. 206. 4 Potomac Flora, p. 63. 5 Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 39, pl. xi. figs. 1-3. 30 EQUISETITES. Tubers of Equisetum and Equisetites—In Duval-Jouve’s Mono- graph on the French species of Eyuisetum some good figures are given, which have been repeatedly reproduced by subsequent writers, showing the nature and manner of occurrence of tubers. On pl. i. fig. 4,' is represented a node of a rhizome of Eyucsetum maximum, Lam., from which three sets of pyriform tubers are given off; fig. 1 of the same plate shows elliptical tubers attached to a rhizome of Z. arvense, L., and in fig. 5 the tuberous branches of LH. palustre, L. These tubers occur either singly, or several together, in the form of a string of beads, and are simply inter- nodes of rhizome branches which have been specially modified to serve as reservoirs of food material. The internal tissues have increased enormously in bulk, and, at the expense of growth in length, the internodes have become tuberous, with their parenchy- matous cells rich in starch. At the base of each tuber the dentate leaf-sheath is easily seen, and if the end tuber of a chain be removed the sheath remains attached to the tuberous internode next below in the form of an apical crown. Frequently the tubers are wrinkled on the outside, and, where an axial cavity is present, this surface-wrinkling may be very pronounced. These special internodal structures, after passing through a period of rest, are able to grow into new Lguisetum plants, and thus serve the purpose of vegetative reproduction. Among recent “‘ Horsetails ”” they occur more or less frequently in such species as LE. arvense, L., E. sylvaticum, L., EL. Telmateda, Ehrh., etc. According to Duval-Jouve, Hyguisetum tubers were first noticed by Helwing in 1712, and are thus described by him in E. arvense:*—“* Hus radicibus glandes copiose adherent, et quam maxime in agris arenosis effodiuntur a sucbus et pueris rusticis. Grati et dulcis sunt saporis. Instinctu nature sues odoratu super- ficiem terre detegunt, et tam diu terram evolvunt, quoad appro- pinguent ad glandes, Polonice Geguzie, nostratibus ‘ Hrd-Niisse? dictos, quod subulet animadvertentes statim accurrunt, et pedibus porcos abigentes leviosimo labore nucleos suos terrestres colligunt. Maturescunt circa tempora autumni.” In 1768 Alberti V. Haller briefly refers to the same bodies as 1 Hist. Nat. Equisetum. ® Helwing, Fl. Plant. indig. Pruss. p. 31. EQUISETITES. 3l follows! :—‘‘ Radicibus tamen glandium simile oliquid sepe adheret, quot porcos credas requirere.” De Candolle in his ‘‘ Flore Fran- caise ” * describes a new species, /. tuberosum, previously proposed by Hectot, and specially characterized by the formation of tubers on the lower nodes. In 1828 Bischoff’ figured the tubers of LE’. arvense attached to the rhizome. Among more recent authors, in addition to Duval-Jouve, Milde‘ gives figures of tubers attached to E. hiemale, L. Such tuberous internodes seem to have been unusually numerous on the rhizome of Eyuisetites Burchardti, as is clearly shown by the large numbers of attached and separate tubers in the English Wealden beds. No other species of yuisetites affords such numerous examples of tubers as this Wealden form, but a Tertiary species, Hyuisetites Parlatorii, Heer,®? should also be quoted as characterized by its chains of elliptical tubers. Heer originally described this species as Physagenia Parlatorii,® from Switzerland, and recognized a probable relationship to #. Burchardti; he in- cluded it, however, among the ‘‘ Plantae incerte sedis,” and, at the same time, compared the “bladders” to the tubers of Eyuisetum arvense, L., and other species. Schimper afterwards changed Heer’s name, Physagenia Parlatorii to Equisetum Parlatorii.’ Another instance of fossil tubers is recorded by Heer from the Jurassic beds of Amur,® under the name Lguisetum Bureense, Heer, and compared by him to the Wealden Lywisetites Bur- chardtt. The same author has recorded another species with tubers, /. arcticum, Heer, from the ‘‘ Miocene”’ of Spitzbergen.° The gigantic Triassic Hyuisetites appear to have produced corre- spondingly large tubers, e.g. HL. arenaceum, Jaeg., and £. Dinstert, Sternb.!° 1 Hist. Stirp. indig. Helvet. vol. iii. p. 2 (under No. 1677, not 1676 as stated by Duval-Jouve). 2 Vol. v. p. 245. 3 Die Chareen und Equiseteen, pl. iv. fig. 6. * Mon. Equiset. pl. xxix. Nova Acta Ac. Cs. Leop.-Car. 1865, vol. xxxii. 5 Heer, Fl. Tert. Helvet. vol. iii. p. 158, pl. exlv. figs. 17-18. 6 Tbid. vol. i. p. 109, pl. xlii. figs. 2-17. 7 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 261. 8 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iv. p. 99, pl. xxii. figs. 6-7. 9 Ibid. vol. ii. pl. i. figs 1-15. - 10 Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. Atlas, pls. ix.—xi. 32 EQUISETITES. V. 2367. Pl. I. Figs. 5 and 6. This specimen shows very clearly the nature of the tuber and the dentate leaf. A delicate branched root occurs immediately below the node to which the tuber is attached. At the apex of the tuber the pointed teeth of the leaf-sheath are easily seen. Cf. Schenk, Paleeontographica, vol. xix. p. 206, pl. xxii. fig. 5a; also Duval-Jouve, Hist. Nat. Equisetum, pl. i. fig. 5. The fragment at the upper corner of the same piece of rock, represented in Fig. 6, shows part of another tuber, also three delicate linear acuminate teeth; the stem is traversed by two distinct grooves. Fig. 5 suggests the natural position of growth of the under- ground axis with its tuberous branch and branched root. Bexhill. Rufford Coll. V. 1070. Slender and imperfectly preserved stem, 23°5 cm. long. Several casts of tubers. Cf. Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. D1 les-e ate Bess Ie V. 1070 and V. 1070a. A short piece of stem with three tubers, and another piece with four. V. 10704. Fragments of stems and several tubers. Two tubers shown in contact. Near Hastings. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1885. V. 2256. Three tubers, broadly oval in shape; the surface and the clay casts covered with a thin black film. Bexhill. Rufford Coll. V. 2730a. Fragments of stems showing longitudinal ridges. V. 27302. Narrow curved stem 20 em. long; long internodes, 2-3:5 em. in length. On the same specimen occur several globular and elliptical tubers, about 1-5 cm. in length. Bexhill. Rufford Coll. V. 2739. This specimen shows the basal end of a tuber with a central depression. Bexhill. Rufford Coll. V. 2834. Several tubers of smaller size, but similar in form to the larger examples of this species. Cf. Dunker, Wealdenbildung, pl. ii. fig. 10. Bexhill. Rufford Coll. V. 2818 and V. 2819. Fragment of the same species. Bexhill. Rufford Coll. EQUISETITES. 33 3.—Equisetites Yokoyama, sp. nov. 1846. ? Carpolithus sertum, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 22, pl. vii. fig. 3. 1875. Hgquisetites Burchardti (in part), Schenk, Palwontographica, vol. xxiii. p. 167, pl. xxvi. fig. 1. Type. Tubers and fragments of stems from Ecclesbourne, near Hastings. British Museum. Woodcuts, Figs. 2, 3 and 3*. Stem narrow, internodes about 1-1 cm. in length and 5 mm. in breadth; tubers narrowly elliptical, attached singly or in chains to the nodes. In the National Collection there are several specimens of Equi- setaceous tubers, both isolated and attached to stems, which are distinct in shape from those of £. Burchardti, Schimp. Mr. Rufford informs me that these two kinds of tubers never occur together, the specimens of the latter species being found at Bexhill, those of the other type at Ecclesbourne. I have decided, therefore, to give expression to the distinctive character of the Ecclesbourne tubers, and have named the new species after Dr. Yokoyama of Tokyo, who has in recent years made valuable additions to our knowledge of the Mesozoic floras of Japan. In E. Yokoyame there are very few details of structure shown in the sandstone specimens. The stems are usually in the form of smooth slender casts with little or no indication of longitudinal ribs and grooves, or leaf-sheaths; the tubers differ from those of £, Burchardti in their smaller size and narrower elliptical form. Fig 2(V. 2871). Fig. 3 (V. 2871). Fig. 3* (V. 2335), Tubers of Eguisetites Yokoyame, sp. nov. One of the best examples is represented in Fig. 2; part of a shrunken tuber is shown in place, and immediately below it is a branch attached to the node. This example, with several others, has probably been preserved in the sandy soil in its original position of growth. D 34 EQUISETITES. In Figs. 3 and 8* we have examples of more perfect tubers. The tubers figured by Dunker under the name Carpolithus sertum agree very closely with some of the English specimens; but the absence of any definition of the North German species prevents us adopting Dunker’s name, even if we regard his specimens as identical with ours. In his second Memoir on the Wealden Flora, Schenk has figured a specimen with numerous tubers under the name Lyuisetites Burchardti, Dunk.; this seems, however, to have a closer resem- blance to our new species; the tubers are narrow and less spherical than those of #. Burchardti. If we compare Schenk’s fig. 1, pl. xxl. Paleeontographica, vol. xix. and fig. 1, pl. xxvi. Paleon- tographica, vol. xxiii. we notice a distinct difference, not only in the shape of the tubers, but in the general habit of the tuber-bearing plant. Schenk’s latter figure shows some of the tubers joined end to end; the same kind of arrangement occurs in some of the English examples, e.g. V. 2365a. It is, perhaps, not entirely satisfactory to have to rely upon certain differences in the shape of tuberous internodes in determining specific definitions; but in the present instance the available material appears to show well-defined differences, and there is confirmatory evidence in the fact that the two forms of tubers are never found in close association. V. 2871. Fig. 2. Internodes 1-1:2 em. long, about 2 mm. broad. The sandstone matrix is penetrated by stems and root fragments; portions of tubers. Cf. #. Burchardti, Dunk., pl. i. fig. 5. Eeclesbourne. Beckles Coll. V. 2871. Fig. 3. A few well-preserved tubers; two shown in place at one node; fragments of roots. Nodes not clearly marked, no ribs on the internodes, the latter about 1 cm. in length. Ecclesbourne. Beckles Coll. V. 2335. Fig. 8*, p. 33. Numerous tubers, some attached to the slender stem. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 727. Several tubers, with stem fragments; many of the former show surface depressions due to shrinkage of the tuber tissues. Ecclesbourne. Dawson Coll. V. 2865. Five specimens. No detail shown. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. FILICINZE. 35 V. 23652. Two long and narrow tubers joined together. Of. Dunker, Wealdenbildung, pl. vii. fig. 3; also Schenk, Paleonto- graphica, vol. xxiii. pl. xxvi. fig. 1, and Heer, Fl. Tert. Helvet. vol. ii. pl. exly. Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2700. Very thin stem, 1 mm. broad and 8 em. long; matrix 3) penetrated by roots. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2833 and V. 2834. Several tubers of the characteristic shape. Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll. Class FILICIN &. Leaves large in proportion to the stem. Sporangia usually occur on the margins or lower surface of ordinary leaves; occasionally the fertile leaves are distinguished from the sterile by well- marked characters. Sub-Class FILICES. Isosporous plants. The prothallus (gametophyte generation) usually moncecious, of moderately large size, and capable of an independent existence. The sporangia usually occur in definite groups or sori, with or without indusia. INTRODUCTION TO FILICES. Probably no fossil plants are more widely known than the fragments of fern fronds so abundant in the beds of shale asso- ciated with our Coal-Measures. When we come to inquire how far paleobotany has made us intimately acquainted with the general morphology, the minute histology, and the natural affinities of the Coal-Measure ferns, it must be admitted that our scientific knowledge of them is extremely limited. There are certain forms of Paleozoic ferns, and in the Mesozoic floras there are also a few genera, of which it is possible to speak with confidence as to family, and occasionally as to internal structure; but such cases are exceptional. The old generic names such as Pecopteris, Sphenopteris, Neuropteris, and others, were instituted as convenient terms by which to 36 FILICIN ©. distinguish certain types of fern fronds, separated from one another by the characters of their nervation; these have been, and still are to a large extent, the accepted terms which are used in speaking of Paleozoic specimens. They are accepted on the understanding that in making use of such names we are merely admitting our imperfect knowledge, and, as the only possible basis of classification, make use of a system which is thoroughly artificial. Ettingshausen, whose works on the venation of the vegetative organs of plants are so widely known, attempted a classification of living ferns on the same lines as those which are followed in dealing with fossils.1 That such a system of arrangement rests on a foundation utterly imsecure has been pointed out by Stur in his classic work on ‘ Die Carbon-Flora der Schatzlarer Schichten.”? He shows how such a genus as Polypodium affords examples of eleven of Ettingshausen’s venation types, and how the same genus has three types in common with Acrostichum, four with Pteris, four with Asplenium, and six with Aspidium. Then again the venation type Sphenopter’s occurs in twelve genera and three families. Hence it must be admitted that the genera which are based on characters of venation alone are essentially provisional, and, if recognized as such, are of extreme value until increased knowledge places us in a position to determine the family to which a fossil fern belongs. The custom of giving recent generic names to fossil ferns is one which several writers have frequently adopted in dealing with Mesozoic and Tertiary plants. This practice, I am inclined to think, has been followed too commonly; and the result has been that among the more modern fossil ferns we find a large number of species spoken of by the names of living genera, to which they have little or no claim to relationship. In speaking of fossil algee attention has been drawn to the great danger which necessarily accompanies this use of modern names; the same remarks apply in the present instance with equal weight. Surely there ought to be good evidence at our command before a fossil fern is designated by such names as Dicksonia, Thyrsopteris, Aspidium, etc., and thus presumably an authenticated occurrence put on record of any of these genera at a certain locality and 1 Farnkrt. Jetztwelt. Vienna, 1865. * Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. xl. Abth. i. 1885. FILICIN®. 37 geological horizon. The termination “tes,” or some similar widely adopted ending, is in some degree a safeguard; it at least shows at once that the species is a fossil, and not a recent fern, and, therefore, as experience has taught, to be accepted cautiously. To retain all the old names in spite of advance in scientific knowledge would be at once a want of recognition of palzeobotanical progress, and a serious obstacle to phylogenetic investigations. The better plan, and one less likely to add unsound links in the chain of evidence on which genealogical diagrams are attempted, would be to retain the older system of nomenclature, proposed by Brongniart and added to or modified by subsequent writers, until such specimens are forthcoming which supply us with fertile fronds or pinne, and thus render possible a comparison with recent forms based on a surer foundation. In Hooker’s well-known paper ‘On the Vegetation of the Carboniferous Period, as compared with that of the present day,’’! the difficulties of determining fossil ferns are brought home in a clear and striking manner by one well qualified to speak on the characters of recent ferns. Many of these difficulties are recognized by all who have even the most superficial acquaintance with palzobotanical herbaria, but it is probable that had more attention been paid to Hooker’s valuable cautions our lists of synonyms would not have reached that length and variety which they too frequently show. There are a number of fossil ferns from rocks of different ages, named neither on account of their venation nor fructification characters, but on certain morphological characteristics which are easily recognized and typical of some peculiar modern genera. No doubt such a basis for a generic title may often be trustworthy, and exceedingly useful as a means of arriving within measurable distance of natural affinity. In such cases, therefore, where we have striking morphological features to guide us, we may with advantage make use of them without waiting for the further evidence of sori or sporangia. In the works of Stur? and Zeiller* on Carboniferous ferns we have admirable proofs of the better material which paleobotanists 1 Mem. Geol. Surv. vol. ii. pt. ii. 1848. 2 Loe. cit. 3 Bassin Houiller de Valenciennes. 38 FILICINZ. have at their disposal to-day, as compared to that which was accessible to earlier workers. In the writings of these authors many of the provisional and artificial terms are replaced by new generic names of real taxonomic value, and resting on such a basis as would be recognized as reasonable by modern botanists. In working through the specimens of ferns mentioned in the present Catalogue the difficulty of coming to satisfactory conclu- sions as to limits of specific distinctions, and the claim of isolated fragments to be included in one or other genus or species, has been demonstrated with only too much clearness. It is impossible to deny that many of our fossil species, determined by those much more fully equipped with the requisite knowledge and experience than myself, are of very doubtful value. Granting the truth of this assertion, it must be remembered that specific distinctions and definitions are of very great importance in fossil botany, and if we waited until our hands were full of all the needful data we should never make any appreciable advance in the analysis of geologic floras. We must recognize that the numerous species of fossil plants do not all rest on unequivocal foundations ; but they are at all events not quite so meaningless and unscientific as some would lead us to believe. The Wealden material affords many interesting examples of the importance of bearing in mind the great differences in species which are solely due to the manner of preservation, and the character of the matrix in which the fossils are found. Some of the fragments, marked out in clear dark-brown lines on a fine homogeneous stone, present a very different appearance when seen as carbonaceous impressions on the surface of a grey-coloured clay. Again, such characters as the shape of the pinnules, whether acutely terminated or with obtuse apices, whether with entire margins or slightly dentate, are to be used with extreme care in view of the different forms which appear in the ultimate segments of recent fronds, according as they are fresh and flat, or dry and more or less curled over at the edges. The position of the pinne on the main rachis, whether alternate or opposite, is of little value in the case of fragmentary remains; in recent fronds the pinne may be opposite towards one end of the rachis, and distinctly alternate towards the other. Another character which I am disposed to regard as of little value is the relative size of the fronds, and also the size of the ultimate divisions. Probably the FILICIN.E. 39 specimens placed together under Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.), as shown in Pls. III.—V., will be regarded by some as obviously distinct ; such, indeed, they may prove to be, but at present I am unable to draw any line between the various types which seem to pass gradually one into another without any appreciable break. To class such leaves together among living ferns would not be considered an unwarranted step in the case of certain species; if, therefore, such a course is adopted in dealing with fossil ferns there can be no very serious argument advanced against it. In a recent volume of Engler’s ‘‘ Botanische Jahrbiicher,” we have an interesting account by Raciborski of a Mesozoic fern flora from Jurassic rocks in the neighbourhood of Cracow.!_ He has made good use of the specimens of fern sporophylls at his disposal, and from the character of the sori and sporangia he has been able to refer many species to their natural position. The genus Alukia is proposed by this writer for the reception of some widely-spread species which possess sporangia of the same type as those of the recent Schizacee. Such a resemblance to Schizacee was first pointed out by Bunbury? in Pecopteris exilis, Phill., from the Yorkshire coast; this species he referred to a position near to Anemia and Mohria. Researches such as this are of the greatest value, and by instituting new names like the one proposed by Raciborski, we are removing the plants from a purely artificial designation to a place in the same category as recent ferns, where the generic and specific titles are professedly based on accepted and trustworthy characters. In the following descriptions of Wealden Fvdices, the acquisition of a considerable amount of fresh material, thanks mainly to the labours of Mr. Rufford, has enabled us to arrive at certain con- clusions as to the systematic position of plants hitherto known under provisional names. The transference of Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong., to Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.), is an instance of this; and in the case of the Wealden species, Sphenopteris Gépperti, Dunk., there is evidence at hand which renders the employment of a new generic designation an advisable step. In both these instances I have mentioned, the change of name, and the reference to certain families of ferns, are based ' Bot. Jahrb. vol. xiii. p. 1, 1891. ® Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. vii. 1851, p. 188, pl. xiii. figs. 5a and 5d, An examination of Bunbury’s specimen (Botanical Museum, Cambridge), enables me to confirm the reference to Schizacee. 40 ONYCHIOPSIS. on the general character of the fructification, and not on details of sporangial structure. Unfortunately no sporangia are sufficiently clearly preserved to afford that important assistance which a more intimate knowledge of them would give. It is to be regretted that the material from the English Wealden does not often enable us to learn anything as to histological structure. There is, however, a notable exception in Tempskya Schimpert, Corda, in which structural details have often been more or less clearly mineralized, thus enabling us to add something towards the elucidation of the real botanical position of this remarkable fossil. A. Genera assigned to existing Families. Order LEPTOSPORANGIAT A. The Sporangia, with walls composed of a single layer of cells, are developed from single surface cells. Family POLYPODIACEZ. Sporangia stalked, and with a vertical incomplete annulus. Genus ONYCHIOPSIS, Yokoyama. [Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 26.] Frond tripinnate, main rachis slender, may be winged, pinne alternate, approximate, lanceolate. Pinnules narrow, lanceolate, acute, alternate, the larger ones serrate, and gradually passing into pinnules with narrow ultimate segments. Fertile pinne with alternate elliptical pinnules which differ in shape from the sterile pinnules, and have the sporangia on the lower surface, giving them the appearance of raised elliptical bodies. This genus was instituted by Yokoyama for the reception of a Japanese species, originally described by Geyler’ as Thyrsopteris elongata, and afterwards referred to by Yokoyama as Dicksonia elongata. The occurrence of fertile pinnules of a distinct and unusual type led to the removal of the specimens from Thyrsopteris to Onychiopsis. Yokoyama pointed out the resemblance between the fertile pinnse of the Japanese specimens and those of the 1 Palwontographica, vol. xxiv. 1876-77, p. 224, pl. xxxi. fig. 4. ONYCHIOPSIS. 41 recent genera Onychium and Gymnogramme, especially of the former. The original diagnosis of the genus Onychiopsis, with reference to a single species, O. elongata, is as follows! :— ‘‘Fertile segments different from the sterile. Sori terminal, linear, on each side of the midrib, parallel with the margin, involucrate; the involucrum of each side confluent over the midrib.” So far as I have been able to discover, this is the first record of Onychium among fossil ferns. According to the ‘Synopsis Filicum,”? the genus occurs at the present time in Northern India, China, Japan, Java, Persia, Abyssinia, and Malayan Pen- insula and Islands, ete. The more detailed examination of the points of agreement between the fossil species and the living genus will be attempted in the description of the two species Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.) and O. Mantelli (Brong.). 1.—Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brongniart). 1824. Hymenopteris psilotoides, Stokes and Webb, Trans. Geol. Soe. ser. ii. vol. i. p. 423, pl. xlvi. fig. 7. 1825. Hymenopteris psilotoides, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt. iv. p. xxii. 1827. Hymenopteris psilotoides, Mantell, Illust. Geol. Sussex, p. 55, pl. i. 3a and 3); pl. iii. fig. 6? and 7; pl. iii.* fig. 2. 1828. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brongniart, Prodrome, p. 50. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brongniart, Hist. vég. foss. p. 170, pl. xlv. figs. 3-7. 1833. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 241. 1833. ? Sphenopteris Sillimani, Mantell, Geol. 8.E. England, p. 239. 1836. Cheilanthites Mantelli, Géppert, Foss. Farnkrt. p. 231, Nova Acta Ac. Caes. Leop.—Car. vol. xvii. Supp. 1838. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt. vii. p. 56. 1839. Cheilanthites denticulatus, Roemer, Verstein. Ool.-Geb. p. 9, pl. xvii. fig. 1. 1843. Cheilanthes (Sphenopteris) Mantelli, Dunker, Progr. p. 5. 1845. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Unger, Syn. plant. foss. p. 59. 1846. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 2, pl. i. fig. 4a. 1846. Sphenopteris Rémeri, Dunker, loc. cit. p. 3, pl. i. figs. 8, 4 and 5. 1846. Sphenopteris tenera, Dunker, loc. cit. pl. viii. fig. 5. 1846. Confervites fissus, Dunker, Joc, cit. pl. i. fig. 1. 1848. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl, p. 1169. 1 Yokoyama, Joc. cit. p. 26. 2 Hooker and Baker, p. 143. 42 ONYCHIOPSIS. 1848. ? Sphenopteris Sillimani, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl. p. 1170. 1850. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Unger, Gen spec. plant. foss. p. 108. 1851-52. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Bronn, Leth. geog. vol. ii. p. 49, pl. xxviil. fig. 40d. ; 1852. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. p. 14, pl. iv. figs. 3 and 4. 1854. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 21. ? Sphenopteris Sillimani, Morris, loc. cit. p. 21. 1865. Microlepia Mantelli, Ettingshausen, Farnkrt. Jetztwelt, p. 216. 1867. Sphenopteris antipodum, Tate, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. p. 139. 1869. Sphenopteris (Davallioides) Mantelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 393. 1871. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 208, pl. xxiii. figs, 1-8. 1871. Sphenolepis Kurriana, Schenk, pl. xxv. fig. 6, loc. cit. p. 243, pl. Xxxviii. fig. 2. 1871. Sphenopteris Gipperti, Schenk (in part), Joc. cit. pl. xxv. figs. 3 and 3a. (Not the other figures of this species.) 1874. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 469. 1875. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Schenk, Paleeontographica, yol. xxiii. p. 168, pl. xxviii. fig. 12. 1878. Sphenopteris Roemeri, Dupont, Bull. Ac. R. Belg. vol. xlvi. ser. ii. p- 396. 1881. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 12, pl. xi. figs. 1-5, pl. xii. figs. 2b and 24d. 1881. Sphenopteris valdensis, Heer, loc. cit. p. 14, pl. xv. figs. 9, 10 and 13, pl. xvi. fig. 54. (The other figures more doubtful.) 1883. ? Triehomanites laxum, Tenison-Woods, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, vol. viii. pt. i. p. 95, pl. x. fig. 2. 1883. ? Trichomanites spinifolium, Tenison- Woods, ibid. p. 95, pl. iii. fig. 7. 1889. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 91, pl. 1. figs. 1 and 2. 1890. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Nathorst, Denksch. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. p. 55 (referred to Onychium). 1891. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Saporta, Compt. Rend. exiii. p. 250. 1891. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Engelhardt, Abh. Isis. Dresden, p. 79. 1892. ° ? Trichomanites laxum, Jack and Etheridge, Geol. Pal. Queensland and New Guinea, p. 316, pl. xviii. fig. 9. Type. Portions of pinne. The type specimen was originally figured by Stokes and Webb in an anonymous paper which appeared in the Transactions of the Geological Society for 1824.’ These authors hesitated to pronounce a decided opinion on the affinity of the plant, but recognized that 1 Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. i. p. 421. ONYCHIOPSIS. 43 it would “probably be a Sphenopteris”’ in the system of Brong- niart. They proposed the name Hymenopteris psilotoides. The same figure reappears in Mantell’s ‘ Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex’? under the original name. The species Sphenopteris Mantelli is first mentioned by Mantell! in a quotation from a letter received by him from Brongniart, who proposed that the name Hymenopteris psilotoides should be replaced by the more suitable designation Sphenopteris Mantelli. Brongniart? includes the species in his Prodrome, and gives the first diagnosis in the Histoire* :— ‘‘§. foliis bipinnatifidis, pinnis approximatis virgatis fastigiatis, pinnulis obliquis, omnibus integris uninerviis, angustis, cuneatis, apice oblique truncatis et subemarginatis; parte exteriori longius producta.” Since 1828 different writers have added to or variously modified Brongniart’s definition; without quoting any of these we may substitute a definition of the species founded on the exceedingly good material in the National Collection. Frond tripinnate, ovate lanceolate, rachis winged and prominent ; pinne lanceolate, alternate, approximate, given off from the main rachis at an acute angle. Pinnules alternate, narrow, lanceolate acuminate, uninerved, of nervation type Coenopteridis;* the larger ones serrate and gradually passing into pinne with narrow ultimate segments. Fructification in the form of sessile or shortly stalked linear ovate segments with rugose surfaces, and terminating usually in a very short awn-like apical prolongation. The specimen figured by Mantell in 1827° (pl. iil. fig. 6) may belong to this species, but the figure represents a number of detached fragments which it is impossible to refer with much certainty to any species. Mantell’s Sphenopteris Sillimani® is very possibly a badly preserved piece of an Onychiopsis Mantelli frond. Carruthers,’ in his account of the Cretaceous plants in Dixon’s 1 Tllust. Geol. Sussex, p. 55. 2 Prodrome, p. 50. 3 Hist. vég. foss. p. 170. 4 Luerssen, in Rabenhorst’s Krypt. Flora, vol. iii. p. 11. 5 Tllust. Geol. Sussex. § Geol. S.E. England, p. 239. 7 Geol. Sussex, p. 282. 44 ONYCHIOPSIS. ‘Geology of Sussex,’ refers to the method of branching in S. Sillimani as unlike that of ferns, but suggests it may possibly be the skeleton of part of a frond. It is true that Mantell’s specimen does not by any means closely resemble a typical Onychiopsis Mantelli fragment, but it agrees fairly well with some of the more fragmentary and less defined specimens. Schenk? decides to regard Confervites fissus, Dunker, as a fragment of O. Mantelli, and is led to this conclusion from an examination of Dunker’s type specimen. There is no appreciable difference between Dunker’s figure of this supposed alga and Mantell’s Sphenopteris Sillimant ; it would seem, therefore, that the best course to follow is to regard both names as synonyms of Onychiopsis Mantelli. With regard to the species of Sphenopteris, S. Rémert and S. tenera, figured by Dunker, there can be little or no doubt that previous writers have correctly included them under Brongniart’s characteristic Wealden species. The species of Sphenopteris described and figured by Tate from the Geelhoutboon beds in the Uitenhage series of South Africa has not hitherto been compared to O. Mantelli. This South African form is compared by Tate? to Sphenopteris Jugleri, Ettingshausen (written in Tate’s paper ‘‘ Fu/geri’’), a species included in this Catalogue under Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). There is such an obvious resemblance between S. antipodium and some of the pieces of O. Mantelli fronds from the Ecclesbourne beds, that it is impossible to point to any difference which would warrant the retention of Tate’s name. After looking at Tate’s type specimen in the Museum of the Geological Society, Burlington House (41s. Foreign Coll.), I have no hesitation in regarding it as an example of O. Mantelli. In the National Collection there are a few specimens of this plant from Africa, e.g. V. 2899 and V. 2401. In the descriptions and illustrations of North German specimens Schenk has added considerably to our know- ledge of this species, but he failed to recognize the fact, since pointed out by Nathorst, that one of his figured specimens of Sphenolepis Kurriana, Schenk, is in reality part of a fertile frond of O. Mantelli. One of the specimens figured by Schenk‘ as 1 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 209. * Quart. Journ. Geol. Soe. vol. xxiii. 1867, p. 189, pl. vi. fig. 3. 3 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxxviil. fig. 2. 4 Loc. cit. pl. xxv. fig. 3. ONYCHIOPSIS. 45 S. Gépperti is most probably a piece of a pinna of O. Mantelli, I have little doubt that the specimens figured by Heer from Almargem, Portugal, as Sphenopteris valdensis are fragments of O. Mantelli ; they correspond very closely with the coarser pinn of the latter species. Cf. e.g. Heer’s figs. 9 and 10, pl. xv.! with the large frond from Ecclesbourne, Pl. II. Fig. 1. Possibly fig. 11 of Heer represents another species, Ruffordia Géppertt. In 1883 Tenison- Woods? published an account of the fossil flora of the Coal deposits of Australia; in his list of ferns are included two new species, Zrichomanites laxum and T. spinifolium, both of which, so far as it is possible to judge from the poor figures, may in all probability be referred to Onychiopsis Mantelli. Messrs Jack and Etheridge, in their recent work on ‘The Geology and Paleontology of Queensland and New Guinea,’’* have referred a fern from the Burrum beds of Queensland to Tenison- Woods’ species, 7’. daxum; the figure of this plant leads me to refer it, with very little hesitation, to the characteristic species of the European Wealden beds. The age of the Burrum beds is not precisely defined; ‘‘newer than the Permo-Carboniferous, and older than the Upper Cretaceous.” * Fontaine, in his Monograph on the Potomac Flora, has instituted several new species of Kunze’s isolated genus Thyrsopteris. On examining his figures of the various types, one cannot help feeling that the grounds on which the genus has been chosen are some- what insufficient. After speaking of MHeer’s description of Thyrsopteris, he notes a close resemblance between some of the Potomac forms and the sterile fronds of Kunze’s genus, and goes on to say:° ‘‘ These (7.e. the Potomac specimens) I place provisionally in the genus Z’hyrsopteris, on account of the great resemblance that the shape of the pinnules, the lobing, and the nervation show to the sterile forms of the various species deter- mined to be Zhyrsopteris by their fructification. As, however, no fructification is found in the Potomac species, the placing of these plants in the genus must be regarded as provisional.”’ Finally, we read: ‘It should be noted that a number of the species of Thyrso- 1 Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881. ® Proc. Linn. Soc. N. 8S. Wales, vol. viii. pt. i. 1883, p. 37. 3 Ibid. p. 315. 4 Ibid. p. 301, > Potomac Flora, p. 120. 46 ONYCHIOPSIS. pteris described in the following pages show a good many features similar to those of Sphenopteris Mantelli, as described by Schenk and Heer.” In his description of Z. rarinervis, Fontaine speaks of his new species as! ‘‘ one of the Sphenopteris Mantelli type, and perhaps by some would be united with that species, but it is more robust, and the pinnules are more like those of the Zhyrsopteris type.” Again, in describing Z. insignis and TZ. insignis, var. angustipennis, the same author adds that both represent plants belonging to the S. Mantelli type.2 From an examination of Fontaine’s figures of the various species of Zhyrsopteris, it is difficult in some cases to thoroughly appreciate those characteristics which have served to separate the closely allied forms. In discussing ‘‘S. DMantelli,’’ Fontaine refers to its polymorphous nature, and prefers to include several plants of the Jantelli type under the genus Thyrsopteris. Except in cases where the fructi- fication has been preserved it is questionable whether the better course would not be to retain the old name, and not introduce new ones without trustworthy evidence. Fortunately some of the specimens recently acquired by the British Museum show distinct fertile segments, and thus enable us to refer the species with some degree of certainty to its living representative; the character of this fructification lends no support to the suggested relationship between TZhyrsopteris and O, Mantelli. The figures of Z'hyrsopteris insignis*® show a striking resemblance to O. Mantelli, but in the larger specimens there appears a certain difference of habit, and, in addition to this, Fontaine refers to some other differences in detail. His figures of the variety angustipennis* would at once be taken for O. Mantelli, were it not that the rachis is not winged and that other points of divergence are insisted on. The same reference has been made by Velenovsky® to Thyrsopteris in the case of ferns which must now be included under the genus Onychiopsis. In a recent paper by Nathorst,® referred to in the list of synonyms, we find the statement that Sphenopteris Mantelli will 1 Potomac Flora, p. 123. 2 Thid. p. 128. 8 Ibid. pl. xiii. figs. 1-3. 4 Ibid. pl. xlii. fig. 3; pl. xiii. fig. 2. 5 Abh. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. vol. ii. 1888, p. 10. § Loe. cit. p. 55. ONYCHIOPSIS. 47 become Onychiopsis Mantelli; this change being a necessary con- sequence of the discovery by Yokoyama of fertile pinne in Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.), a Japanese plant very closely allied to the Western O. Mantelli. Previous to Yokoyama’s important paper in the Journal of the Imperial University of Japan, in which the generic name Onychiopsis is first proposed, a very similar fern with fertile segments had been figured by Velenovsky, from the Cenomanian beds of Bohemia, under the name Zhyrsopteris capsulifera;’ these species, as Nathorst remarks, must also pass into the newer genus. These discoveries of such characteristic Onychium-like fructifications enable us to include under Yoko- yama’s genus a group of plants previously referred to Sphenopteris, Thyrsopteris, Dicksonia, etc., and, at the same time, afford valuable evidence as to the existence of an Onychium type of fern in Upper Mesozoic times in England, North Germany, Bohemia, Japan, and several other districts. Finally, the same species has recently been recorded by Engelhardt from the Cenomanian of Niederschéna; unfortunately no figures accompany the description. As Zeiller* has pointed out, this discovery of a Wealden fern in rocks referred to a higher horizon in the Cretaceous system is of considerable interest. In the diagnosis of the species reference has been made to the characters of the fertile pinne, which will be more fully dealt with in the descriptions of such examples as occur in the collections (V. 1069, V. 2151, V. 2159, V. 2159). Having found the fertile specimens of this well-known species I endeavoured to determine what genus of recent ferns might best be taken as the nearest living representative; the two genera Onychium, Kaulf., and Cryptogramme, R. Br., appeared to come nearest to the fossil forms, but of the two the former showed a more intimate re- semblance. No distinct traces of sporangia have been detected in the fossil species, and the comparison between Onychium and Onychiopsis Mantelli is, therefore, based on the general habit of the fertile fronds and the form of the sporangiferous pinnules, Whilst still in doubt as to how far the evidence at command warranted a change 1 Velenovsky, Joc. cit. pl. i. figs 6-12. ? Ann. géol. vol. viii. 1892-93, p. 893. 48 ONYCHIOPSIS. of name, I found that Yokoyama! had figured and described the same kind of fertile pinne in a Japanese ‘‘ Jurassic” fern very closely allied to the European Onychiopsis Mantelli; but in his description of the Japanese species, Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.), there is no reference made to Brongniart’s species. He compares his fertile specimens to the same recent genera already referred to, Onychium, Kaulf., and Cryptogramme, R. Br., and on the strength of the strong likeness to the former he founds his new genus, Onychiopsis. There is such an exceedingly intimate connection between Yokoyama’s species and our English specimens, that I have no hesitation in following the suggestion previously made by Nathorst, and altering the well-known Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong., to Onychiopteris Mantelli (Brong.), thus substituting for a provisional generic name one which recognizes the botanic affinity of the Wealden species. V-2168 Pll) Fig. A very fine specimen, and much larger than any hitherto figured of this species. It shows very clearly the general habit of the tripinnate frond, but the details are not clearly defined. Length of frond 18 cm., breadth about 12 em. The resemblance of some parts of this specimen to Heer’s figures of Sphenopteris valdensis has already been alluded to; there is also a distinct agreement between the pinnee and the fragment figured by Tate from South Africa as S. antipodum. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. Ve 2lola. Pitt eis. 1 In this specimen we have an exceedingly delicate (?) frond which, on a smaller scale, repeats the characters of the species as represented in V. 2168, Pl. II. Fig. 1. The marked difference in size led me to consider the advisability of instituting a variety, O. Mantelli, var. minor, but such a course would merely serve to multiply terms, and would not be supported by any characters of trustworthy value as regards natural affinity. A difference in size, although strongly marked, is not a character to be lightly insisted on as a basis for a species or variety when we are dealing with fragments of fossil plants. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 26, pl. ii. figs. 1-3. ONYCHIOPSIS. 49 V. 1069. Pl. III. Fig. 4. Ecclesbourne. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1885. V..2151. Pl Vi. Big. 2. V. 2159. Pl. III. Fig. 3, and Woodcut, Fig. 4, p. 50. V. 2159a. Woodcut, Fig. 5, p. 50. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. In Pl. IIT. Fig. 2 (V. 2151) we have portions of pinne showing all the characteristics of Onychiopsis Mantelli. At a the lower part of a pinna is preserved with the axis prolonged, and bearing alternately disposed narrow ovate appendages; these appendages must be regarded as fertile segments of the pinna. There is a gradual transition seen from the sterile to the fertile part in the right-hand fragment shown in Fig. 2a. In the same Figure, at 4, the terminal portion of a fertile pinna is more perfectly preserved, and here the distal end of the axis has the characteristic serrate form of the tip of an ordinary sterile frond. In Pl. Ill. Fig. 4 (V. 1069) three fertile axes are shown ; these, if taken alone, would doubtless be referred to a position far removed from Onychiopsis Mantelli, but if we compare them with the terminal portions of the pinne of Fig. 2 (V. 2151), there can be no doubt as to their real nature. At the tip of the right-hand axis the serrate character is readily seen, as previously noticed in Pl. III. Fig. 24, but this is rather too small to be distinct in the figure. The specimen (V. 1069) shown in Fig. 4 affords strong proof of the intimate relationship between O. Mantelli and O. elongata (Geyl.), as figured by Geyler.! The details of the fertile segments are best seen in P]. IIT. Fig. 2 (V. 2159); three of the segments are enlarged 33 times in the Woodcut, Fig. 4 (p. 50). In the Woodcut, Fig. 5, four segments of another specimen are also enlarged 34 times; these are somewhat shorter and show a much more distinct median line. Compare with these figures Yokoyama’s figure of O. elongata;* there is a close agreement, as regards the fertile segments. Cf. also Velenovsky’s figure of Onychiopsis (Thyrsopteris of Velenovsky) capsulifera, Vel.° 1 Paleontographica, vol. xxiv. pl. xxxi. fig. 5. 2 Yokoyama, Joc. cit. pl. ii. fig. 44. 3 Velenovsky, doc. cit, pl. i. fig. 10. 50 ONYCHIOPSIS. An examination with a low magnifying power enables us to describe the fertile segments as swollen, narrow, ovate bodies, often prolonged at the apex into a delicate awn-like termination ; with rugose surfaces, a thin flattened margin, and occasionally a longitudinal median depression. The roughness of the surface on further enlargement, e.g. Fig. 4, resolves itself in some of the better specimens into small circular areas, which probably mark the position of sporangia. Fertile segments of Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Fie. 4 (V. 2159), Fie. 5 (V. 2159a). Enlarged 32 times. Enlarged 33 times. Among recent ferns there can be little doubt that Onychium comes nearest to O. Muantelli in the form of the fertile segments. The sporangia are clustered together in oval sori covered by an indusium, and often prolonged apically into a delicate appendage. The circular areas referred to in the fossil no doubt indicate sporangia, and the median groove seen in some cases, if not an accident of preservation, may correspond to a similarly situated depression in the sori of Onychiwm. The flat and thin margin in all probability corresponds to the flattened indusium border in the recent genus. Fée’s figures of Onychium’ show very clearly the character of the fertile pmnules. Some specimens of Onychiwm auratum, Kaulf., in the Botanical Department Herbarium of the British Museum show fertile segments strikingly similar in form to those of the Wealden fern; in the recent species the arrange- ment of these sporangiferous segments is looser and less compact and regular than those shown in Pl. III. Figs. 1 and 2. The recent 1 Fée, Genera Filicum, pl. vii. ¢. ONYCHIOPSIS. onl specimens also show a similar passage from the fertile part of a pinna to a terminal serrate portion, as represented in the fossil specimens, Pl. III. Figs. 2-4. Onychium Japonicum, Kunze, also agrees very well with the fossil species. These resemblances appear to me amply sufficient to justify the adoption of the name Onychiopsis in place of Sphenopteris, in spite of the fact that we are unable to decide how far the sporangia support this reference to the Polypodiacee. Fertile fronds of Cryptogramme crispa, R. Br., also approach fairly closely in appearance to those of O. Mantelli, but the likeness is much less pronounced than in the case of Onychium. Since writing the above I have found that the Marquis of Saporta has recorded the occurrence of fertile specimens of Sphenopteris Mantelli at Quinta-do-Leirido,! and other localities in Portugal; he considers that the fructification agrees most closely with that of Davallia, especially D. gibberosa, Sw.2. My thanks are due to the Marquis of Saporta for some further details as to the Mesozoic flora of Portugal which he has very kindly communicated to me. In a letter recently received (December 30, 1893), he states his opinion that the reference of Sphenopteris Mantelli to the recent genus Davallia seems to be more natural than that of Yokoyama, who refers the closely-allied species, S. elongata, to Onychium; at the same time Saporta does not consider the question as definitely settled. In the forthcoming monograph on the Mesozoic flora of Portugal we shall have plates and detailed descriptions, which will enable us to consider more fully the rival claims of Davallia and Onychium as to which is the most nearly allied genus to the widely distributed Wealden species. Meanwhile, I do not wish to alter my opinion that the evidence afforded by the English specimens is distinctly in favour of the substitution of Onychiopsis for Sphenopteris, as expressing the most probable relation of the fossil fern to the genus Onychium. V. 2189. Woodcut, Fig. 6. This specimen, with several others, e.g. V. 2188, V. 23142, etc., probably represents part of a rhizome of O. Mantelli. The surface 1 Rev. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, p. 272. * IT am unable to detect in fertile fronds of Davallia gibberosa any distinct resemblance to the fossil form. a2 ONYCHIOPSIS. of the repeatedly branched stem is covered with small scaly structures, reminding one of the rhizome of the Hare’s-foot fern. | Some of the specimens are larger than that shown in the Figure, but are not so clearly preserved; in all cases there occur fragments of O. Mantelli fronds in close association with the branched scaly structures. | Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. Fig. 6 (V. 2189). Part of a rhizome of Onychiopsis Mantelli. (Natural size.) V. 709. Rachis shown very clearly. Tilgate Forest. Purchased. V. 723. This fragment looks very like the terminal portion of a fertile frond or pinna. Cf. Yokoyama, Joc. cit. pl. iu. fig. 4 (0. elongata). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 10692. Distinct rachis. This specimen shows some pinne with long close-set pinnules very similar to those of O. elongata. Cf. V. 2371, Pl. Il. Fig. 3. Cf. Zhyrsopteris microphylla, Fontaine, loc. cit. pl. xlv.; also Z. sp., pl. xl. Near Hastings. Rufford Coil. V. 10694. Rhizome with associated fragments of pinne. Eccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2151a. Very similar to V. 2151, Pl. III. Fig. 2. V. 21510. Portion of a well-preserved frond. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. ONYCHIOPSIS. 53 V. 2188. A much branched and spreading rhizome, with its surface covered with small depressions representing the points of attachment of scales; in some places there is a carbonaceous covering preserved. As usual with specimens of this kind there are associated fragments of O. Mantelli pinne. This form of rhizome resembles that which is characteristic of some recent Davallias, and is more spreading than the usual form met with in species of Onychium. Such differences, however, in the nature of the stems need not be looked upon as an argument of very great weight in questions of generic affinity, when Mesozoic and Recent ferns are compared. Ecclesbourne. _ Purchased 1839. V. 2231. Rhizome fragments with scaly surface markings, and on the same specimen portions of fronds. Cf. Woodcut, Fig. 6, p- 52, V. 2189. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2235. Part of a spreading rhizome with less clearly preserved leaf fragments. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 22410. Several well-preserved sterile pinne and portions of sterile fronds on a large slab. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2314. Fragments of circinately rolled fern fronds, one much more perfect than the others. There are also several pieces of rhizome-like structures, some showing the characteristic scaly appendages. On the same slab of sandstone occur fragments of what may be O. Mantelli, but they are very indistinct and doubtful. I have included this specimen under the head of O. Manteili, although there is no absolute proof that the various fragments really belong to that fern. Cf. Schenk, Palaontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxx. figs. 4 and 5, also vol. xxii. pl. xxvi. fig. 2. V. 23140. Probably a rhizome with the basal portions of petioles attached ; shows the rough scaly surface. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coli. V. 2348. Rachis clearly preserved, 12°5 cm. long. Somewhat less compact in habit than most examples of the species. ccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2369. Rhizome fragments with leaf-stalks attached; also pieces of pinne. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 54 ONYCHIOPSIS. V. 2616. Under this number there are two specimens of a coarser form of O. Mantelli. Sussex. Beckles Coll. 7354. Two small specimens (one without a registered number, but probably the reverse of 7354), which closely resemble some fragments figured by Mantell' and Brongniart.? Tilgate Forest. Mantell Coll. 8390. This agrees closely with Mantell, Joc. cit. pl. xx. fig. 2, and Brongniart, doc. cit. pl. xlv. fig. 7a. It is possible that the figured specimen was the reverse piece of the Museum example. Tilgate Forest. Mantell Coll. 32593. Shows a prominent rachis projecting from the surface of the sandstone. ‘Tilgate Forest. Mantell Coll. 38367. Part of a pinna. This specimen bears a certain resem- blance to that figured by Stokes and Webb,? pl. xlvi. fig. 7, and reproduced in Mantell’s ‘‘ Geol. S.E. England,” and in Brongniart’s ‘* Hist. vég. foss.”’ There are, however, distinct differences between the specimen and the figures referred to, which compel me to merely suggest the possibility of the Museum specimen being the reverse piece of Stokes and Webb’s original. Tilgate Forest. Mantell Coll. 38372. In all probability this is the type specimen of Mantell’s Sphenopteris Sillimani, figured in the ‘Geol. S.E. England,” p. 239. Hastings Sands, Sussex. Mantell Coll. The following specimens do not call for any special mention. V. 14, Hastings, purchased; V. 724 and V. 726, Hastings, Dawson Coll.; V. 728 and V. 2232, Ecclesbourne, Rufford Coll.; WV. 2615, V. 2856, V. 2862, V. 2868 and V. 2876, near Hastings, Beckles Coll.; 8084 and 8361, Tilgate Forest, Mantell Coll. ; 52942 (several specimens with this registered number), Ecclesbourne, presented by J. HE. H. Peyton, Esq. 1 Tllust. Geol. Sussex, pl. i. figs. 3a, 3d. 2 Hist. vég. foss. pl. xlv. fig. 4. 3 Trans. Geol. Soe. ser. ii. vol. i. ONYCHIOPSIS. 55 2.—Onychiopsis elongata (Geyler). 1871. Sphenopteris Gopperti, Schenk (in part), Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxx. figs. 2 and 2a (not the other figures). 1877. Thyrsopteris elongata, Geyler, Paleontographica, vol. xxiv. p. 221. 1883. Zhyrsopteris elongata, Schenk, Richthofen’s China, vol. iv. p. 263, ple. live Hig. 2. 1886. Dicksonia elongata, Yokoyama, Bull. Geol. Soc. Japan, vol. i. No. 1, p. d. 1889. Thyrsopteris rarinervis, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 124, pl. xxvi. figs. 6 and 7; pl. xliii. figs. 4-6; pl. xliv. figs. 1, 2 and 5; pl. xlix. fig. 2; pl. clxix. figs. 6 and 7. 1890. Onychiopsis elongata, Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. p- 27, pl. ii. figs. 1-3; pl. iii. fig. 6d; pl. xii. figs. 9 and 10. 1890. Onychiopsis elongata, Nathorst, Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. p. 55. Type. Sterile and fertile portions of frond. The species, instituted by Geyler from specimens found in the Province of Kaga, Japan, is thus defined': — ‘“‘Th. fronde bi-tripinnata, pinnis pinnulisque elongatis, pinnulis inferioribus imprimis longissimis; pinnulis sterilibus crenatis seu pinnatifidis in apicem sensim protractis, ]obis obtusiusculis, pinnulis fertilibus eodem modo valde elongatis, involucris breviter stipitatis, ovalibus seu ? rotundatis,”’ The few fragments in the Museum collections referred to this species add nothing to the definitions given by Geyler and Yokoyama; the latter had the more perfect material at his disposal, and his diagnosis may therefore be reproduced verbatim. ‘Frond slender,’ bi-tripinnated; sterile pinne alternate or rarely opposite, elongated, their length rapidly increasing towards the lower part of the frond; pinnules alternate, acutely directed forward, lanceolate or linearly-lanceolate, entire or lobed, or even pinnately parted; lobes or partitions acute at apex and acutely directed forward just like the pinnules themselves. Venation obsolete, secondary veins simple, each going into a lobe. Fertile pinnules elongated, with a linear terminal sorus on both sides of the midrib.” Geyler compares his species with some previously described and figured by Heer under the generic name Thyrsopteris, from East 1 Palwontographica, vol. xxiv. p. 224. 2 Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. p. 27, 56 ONYCHIOPSIS. Siberia and Amurland, and considers the resemblance close enough to justify the inclusion of the Japanese species in the same genus. The resemblance between the fertile axis of O. elongata, figured by Geyler, to those of O. Mantelli (V. 1069, Pl. III. Fig. 4) has already been referred to, In Richthofen’s ‘‘ China” Schenk figures some portions of a frond from Japan, without any more exact locality, which he places with Geyler’s species. Most probably, as Schenk points out, this specimen belongs to the common Japanese type, O. elongata (Geyl.). Schenk’s figure of Sphenopteris Gopperti, referred to in the synonomy, seems to me indistinguishable from O. elongata. Cf. Schenk, Paleeontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxx. fig. 2, and Pl. II. Fig. 2 of this Catalogue. Yokoyama, in the first of the two papers referred to above, includes O. elongata in his list of fossils under the name Dicksonia elongata; in his second and more important work, the genus Onychiopsis is substituted for the original name of Dieksonia. He speaks of the species as the ‘‘ chief and characteristic fossil of the Japanese Flora, being found in all of the fossil localities.” From Fontaine’s long list of the species of Zhyrsopteris I have included one as a synonym of O. elongata; but it is not at all unlikely that several of the Potomac ‘‘ species” ought to be placed, if not in the same species, at least very near to the Japanese form. In the general remarks at the end of the Potomac Monograph we have the following statement with regard to the genus Thyrsopteris :? ‘Tt is true that, as no fructification has been found on these ferns, they may be incorrectly placed in the genus Thyrsopteris.” ‘‘The species,”’ says Fontaine, ‘‘most of them well characterized, number forty.’’ A number of them are described as possessing ‘‘ the same type of foliage as the Wealden ferns, S. JDantelli, Brong.; S. Gopperti, Dunker; S. Cordai, Schenk; S. plurinervia, Heer; and S. Gomesiana, Heer.’’ Lastly, we are told, ‘‘most of them are new and unique. One or two have some resemblance to Oolitic species, while a greater number may be grouped as belong- ing to the two Wealden types, S. Mantelli and S. Gépperti.” Here we have forty new species founded on sterile fronds, or 1 Loe. cit. p. 28. 2 p. 120. ONYCHIOPSIS. 57 portions, sometimes extremely minute portions, of fronds, and all placed in the recent genus Zhyrsopterts. One would naturally expect that this remarkable assemblage of species, called by the name of a unique living genus, should rest on trustworthy evidence. The author of these forty species himself admits that no fructification has been found; surely this admission will be sufficient in itself to make botanists pause before they allow them- selves to be lost in contemplation of the wealth of specific form displayed by these Potomac plants, or to assume as an established fact that Kunze’s solitary species was represented in the Potomac vegetation by such a host of ancestors. We may justly ask—Are there differences enough, and sufficiently well marked, between these numerous varieties to warrant the result arrived at; and, secondly, is the evidence at hand strong enough to justify the use of the name Zhyrsopteris, or even a modification of it which would be suggestive of something not quite so certain and well founded ? To the first question I am strongly of opinion that the answer is a decided negative. It must be admitted that my evidence is entirely based on an examination of Fontaine’s figures and descrip- tions, and has not the weight of testimony derived from an actual inspection of the specimens themselves. To the second question, the admission that no trace of a fertile pinna or pinnule has been recognized is, I am disposed to think, a sufficient reply. It would be a presumption and beyond my province, to attempt to describe how many species are represented by the “‘ Thyrsopteris”’ specimens found in the Potomac beds; but it is at least possible to indicate a few of those cases in which the determinations of Fontaine are not such as I feel able to accept. The species 7. Virginica' is founded on specimens of the ‘‘pinnee of ultimate order,” and the fragments figured might easily be included in some of the thirty-nine remaining forms without the unnecessary institution of an additional species. Another instance of the same kind is afforded by 7. alata, which depends for its existence on part of a pinna apparently indistinguishable from TL. Meekiana. In describing 7. rarinervis? Fontaine refers to it as “one of the 1 Loe. cit. p. 120, pl. xxiv. fig. 1. 2 Loc. cit. p. 128. 58 ONYCHIOPSIS. Sphenopteris Mantelli type,” and adds: ‘‘It resembles more than any other described fossil Thyrsopteris elongata, Geyler.” If we look at Fontaine’s pl. xxvi. figs. 6 and 7, and compare. with Geyler’s pl. xxxi. fig. 4, it is well-nigh impossible to agree that these are different species, to say nothing of distinct genera ; or, again, it is difficult to separate, on good grounds, fig. 2, pl. xliv. of Fontaine from Onychiopsis elongata as figured by Yokoyama, pl. i. fig 2. It is true that Fontaine’s specimens show in some cases a stouter rachis than occurs in the Japanese examples. There seems to be but slender evidence in support of T. Meekiana, var. angustiloba. Cf. O. elongata; e.g. Fontaine, plo alin, fig 8) ands Yokoyama,’ plvais fen: The species of Onychiopsis described by Velenovsky,! referred to below, should be compared with Z. crenata, pl. xxxix. fig. 1, Fontaine, and Velenovsky, pl. i. fig. 9. In 7. densifolia, Font., we have a fern which seems to be very similar to Yokoyama’s fig. 2, pl. ii. of O. elongata; the difference consists in the somewhat broader pinnules of the former. The figures of 7. densifolia suggest a form of plant identical with that represented by 7. Meekiana, Font., e.g. pl. xxxviii. fig. 3. Another of these ‘‘ Zhyrsopteris” species, Z. microphylla, is referred by Fontaine to the ‘‘ Sphenopteris Mantelli type,” and the figures of this species appear to me illustrations of the plant included under the name 7. angustifolia; both come near to O. elongata. Compare also 7. pinnatifida, Font., pl. li. fig. 2, etc., with O. elongata, and with the latter species Z. inequipinnata, Font. T. elliptica, Font., is described as ‘‘not very close to any previously described fossil; ’’ * there appears, indeed, to be a rather close resemblance between the figures of this species, pl. xlvi. fig. 1, and 7. densifolia, Font., pl. xl. fig. 4. In addition to the two species 7. Virginica and 7. alata, to which allusion has been made as examples of specific determinations which are without such claim as entitles them to serious recognition as well-defined types, a third may be mentioned, 7. heterophylla, Font., which does not appeal more strongly for acceptance, if we may judge by the figured fragments, pl. lviii. figs. 3 and 3a. 1 Loe. cit. p. 10, pl. i. figs. 6-12. 2 Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 138. ONYCHIOPSIS. 59 Although not included under the present species, 0. elongata, there is a plant which must be bricfly alluded to as an example of the same genus, and probably very closely allied to Geyler’s species. In 1888 Velenovsky contributed an important communication, apparently overlooked by some recent writers, on ‘‘ Die Farne der bohmischen Kreideformation’’; he includes in his list of Cenomanian ferns from the Perucer beds a new species, Vhyrso- pteris capsulifera,’ and compares it to Z. Maakiana, Heer, and especially to O. elongata (Geyler). Several figures are given both of sterile and fertile pinne, and the figure of the fertile axis, pl. i. fig. 10, represents what is obviously the same type of fertile pinna as Geyler’s pl. xxxi. fig. 5 and Pl. III. Figs. 2-4 of this Catalogue. Possibly the differences which are shown in the figures by Velenovsky, Geyler, and Yokoyama, between T. capsulifera and T. elongata, are hardly of sufficient importance to render a second specific name necessary; the chief divergence being the greater breadth of the ultimate segments in most of the Bohemian specimens. Nathorst,” in calling attention to this paper by Velenovsky, notes the fact that the species 7. capsulifera possesses fructification exactly like that of O. elongata, and must, therefore, be included in the same genus. In looking through the English Wealden material it has often been difficult to decide the limits to assign to the two species O. Mantelli and O. elongata; the coarser forms of the former come very near to the latter species. So far, however, I have included only one specimen in this species. It is not impossible that we may eventually have to include even those forms with larger and broader pinnules in the species O. Mantelli; for the present, at least, there seem to be good reasons for referring such specimens as the one figured, Pl. II. Fig 2, to Geyler’s species. We gsilee P). Tl: Fig. -2: In this Figure are represented the best of several fragments which occur on the same piece of rock. On the same specimen are some badly preserved fragments of Cladophlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.). 1 Abk. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. vol. ii. 1888, p. 10. * Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. p. 55. 60 ACROSTICHOPTERIS. Cf. Thyrsopteris Meekiana, var. angustiloba, Font., pl. lvi. ete. ; also Sphenopteris Mantelli, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxv. fig. 6; Sphenopteris Goépperti, Schenk, loc. cit. pl. xxx. fig. 2; and Asplenium Dicksonianum, Heer, from the Kome beds of Greenland, Fl. foss. Arct. iii. pl. i. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. Genus ACROSTICHOPTERIS, Fontaine. [Potomac Flora, U.S. Geol. Surv. Monograph, xv. 1889, p. 106.] Fontame has instituted this genus for certain fossil ferns “peculiar to the Potomac formation”; he considers that it stands nearest in most features to Acrostichum among recent genera. The genus is thus described!:— “Fronds, probably creeping, with very long, often flexuous, rachises, which seem to have been more or less succulent; pinne going off obliquely, long and apparently slender; ultimate pinnz or pinnules sub-opposite to alternate, comparatively short, and cut down nearly to the rachis into more or less cuneate-flabellate pinnules or primary segments. These are divided generally into cuneate-flabellate segments, which in turn are separated into oblong segments ending in oblong, or ovate-obtuse, or acute teeth; pinnules decurrent and forming a wing; nerves slender but distinct, flabellately diverging, forking dichotomously, and ending in the teeth; fructification occurring on the basal segments of the pinnules, in the upper portions of the frond on the upper one alone, in the lower portions on the upper and lower ones; the fructified segments, which on the lower side are covered by the naked sori, and seen from the upper side, especially when compressed on the clay, look like pods.” In the figures of the Potomac species of this genus there are several fertile specimens shown, but no detailed sporangial structure. Perhaps the best figure is that of a fertile pinnule of under the heading Sphenopteris-Trichomanides, but this was instituted by Ettingshausen, in 1865, under the name Trichomanites Gopperti* for the reception of a plant from the Dachschiefer of Moravia and Silesia. Sphenopteris Gopperti, Dunk., is included by Schimper as a synonym of S. Hartlebeni. 1 Wealdenbildung, p. 12, pl. v. fig. 3. 2 Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 14. 8 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 412, 4 Sitz. k, Ak, Wiss, Wien. math.-nat. Cl. vol. li, Abth. i, 1865, p. 205. RUFFORDIA. 79 The small piece figured by Trautschold as Sphenopteris Auerbacht, Traut., from the Klin Sandstone seems to be identical with some forms of Ruffordia Gopperti, as first suggested by Schenk.’ Schenk compares Ruffordia Gépperti with Sphenopteris Stenstrupi, Hr., and S. Hinslopi, Old.; his figures represent imperfect pieces of pinne. There is no mention of this species by Fontaine in his ‘‘ Potomac Flora;” one of his species, S. acrodentata,? founded on a very small fragment, seems to be almost identical with the broadest forms of our English species, and especially with such as I propose to consider as Ruffordia Gépperti, var. latifolia. From the small piece figured by Fontaine it is impossible to form any idea of the habit of the fern; the character of the pinna represented by him in fig. 4, pl. xxxiv. seems to be very much the same as that of Thyrsopteris brevipennis, Font., represented in the same plate, figs. 3 and 3a; in the former the pinnules are dentate, in the latter entire. In addition to the specimens figured by Nathorst from Japan as S. Gépperti, those fragments described and figured by Yoko- yama as Thyrsopteris Kagensis, Yok.,° should be compared with the present species; there is no adequate reason for referring them to the genus Zhyrsopteris. Repeated examinations and comparisons of a large number of specimens in the Museum Collection, have led me to regard Ruffordia Goépperti as a species of which the vegetative parts are extremely variable, and to a much greater extent than the figures hitherto published would lead us to expect. The task of determining, or attempting to determine, what limits to assign to this species has been attended with considerable difficulty, and the conclusion arrived at is one which will doubtless suggest that two or more specifically distinct forms have been included under one name. My first inspection of the material favoured the view of two or three species or, at any rate, varieties; but a more detailed examination forced me to the conclusion that I was dealing with a number of specimens, which could be arranged in a regular and gradually varying series, with a marked difference in form between the extreme types. 1 Paleontographica, vol, xix. p. 261. ? Potomac Flora, p. 90, pl. xxxiv. fig. 4. § Journ. Coll, Sci. Japan, vol, iii, 1890, p. 23, pl. i. figs. 6 and 6a, 80 RUFFORDIA. Among recent ferns it is well known what striking variations occur in the vegetative structures within the limits of a single species. -Aspleniwm may be mentioned as one genus which shows this with sufficient clearness. In Pl. IV. is reproduced one of the most perfect specimens of RL. Gépperti. This is an excellent example of one end of the series, and represents the form of frond which is characterized by fine and narrow ultimate segments. In. Pl. V. Figs. 1-5 we have other specimens of what I regard as the same species. On comparing the figures of Pl. V. with those of Pl. 1V. and also Pl. VI. there are sufficiently obvious differences; these, however, consist mainly, if not entirely, in the relative size of the ultimate segments of the pinne, the general habit being practically identical in the two extreme forms. When a careful survey is taken of a large number of specimens, inter- mediate forms arrange themselves between the narrow and broad- leaved types; a few such forms are shown in Pl. V. In a case such as this, where we have no hiatus definite enough to admit of a specific difference, and where we have equally, if not more, striking instances of disparity in the size of leaf divisions among recent ferns, the most reasonable course to follow appears to be that of regarding the several forms as examples of one and the same species. It is but rarely that one district supplies such numerous and well-preserved samples of a local flora as that from which the British Museum material was obtained; and I cannot but think, that to create a number of ill-defined species, on such minor differences as are discoverable in this rich collection, would be to follow a course to which the paleobotanist is too often impelled by the scanty and imperfect data at his disposal. So far as the barren fronds or pinne are concerned there is a striking resemblance as regards habit to Asplenium fragrans, Sw. The variable size and shape of the ultimate segments, which form so marked a feature in the fossil, are still more striking in the recent fern. Under A. fragrans Hooker and Baker include a variety B. A. feniculaceum, H. and B., which has ‘‘narrowly linear”? ultimate segments, but the remark is added that ‘‘the two varieties seem to be quite connected by gradual and intermediate gradations.’’} 1 Synopsis Filicum, p. 216, RUFFORDIA. 81 In the present instance we are not dependent on the uncertain guidance of sterile structures, but are in a position to make use of the valuable evidence of fertile pinne. Im Pl. III. Fig. 5 we have an example of &. Gépperti which differs from those previously referred to in its smaller size; in Fig. 6 there is the same form, but with the two lowest pinne in the fertile condition. In other specimens the whole frond, or pinna, bears sporangia, and agrees exactly with the two basal pinne shown in Fig. 6. A close inspection of the fertile branches reveals the existence of sporangia, but without any sign of detailed structure. Such characters as these are met with in the genus Anemia, and the resemblance is such that I am disposed to regard Ruffordia Gopperti as nearly allied to this member of the Schizacee. There is not only an unmistakable likeness between the fertile branches of Anemia adiantifolia, Sw., and those of the Wealden plant, but an equally strong correspondence in the barren branches and in the habit of the complete frond. This affords another example of the danger of relying merely on the close parallelism in the form of sterile fronds between fossil and recent ferns. Such a parallelism has been pointed out as regards Asplenium fragrans, Sw., and the present species, but on extending the comparison to the fertile portions of the frond the similarity of the purely vegetative parts is shown to be entirely misleading where botanical affinity is concerned. If my determinations be approximately correct, we have in Ruffordia Goépperti an example of a fern much more perfectly preserved than is usual among the fossil representatives of the Filices. In addition to the series of sterile vegetative organs we have good samples of fertile pinne, and, in association with these leaf structures, portions of what I regard as rhizomes with the lower parts of petioles still attached: such rhizome fragments are shown in Pl. X. Figs. 1 and 2. Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.). V.2157. Pl Ly. These two fronds, or pinne, represent one end of the series of variable forms; the ultimate linear-acuminate segments are uninerved. The habit is compact, and the pinne have a more or less deltoid form, with the details distinctly marked as light brown im- pressions on a homogeneous ironstone. Ecclesbourne. Ruffurd Coll. G 82 RUFFORDIA. V. 2166. Pl. V. Fig: 1. Corresponds closely with V. 2157, but differs in the greater size of the frond, of which this is a fragment, and in the fact that the ultimate segments are slightly broader. Closely associated with the fragments on this piece of rock are portions of what may possibly be the rhizome of the same species. Cf. Pl. IV. (V. 2157) and Pl. V. Fig. 2 (V. 2156). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2156. Pl. V. Fig. 3. In Fig. 34 we have an exceedingly graceful ?frond of roughly pentagonal form and compact habit. It represents a further increase in the breadth of the ultimate segments, but is still entirely in accord with the general character of the species. Fig. 38 shows part of a large frond with a well-marked flexuous rachis. Cf. Pl. V. Fig. 2 (V. 2155a). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2155. Pl. V. Fig. 2. Very similar as regards breadth of segments to V. 2157, Pl. IV. The rachis is distinctly flexuous, and the general habit of this and other specimens is strikingly similar to that of Anemia adiantifolia, Sw. V. 2155. The reverse piece of V. 2155a. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2243. Pl. V. Fig. 4. A slight increase is apparent in the breadth of the segments, and some of them appear to be obtusely rounded at the apex rather than acute. In each lobe of the pinne are several palmately- placed veins. The first glance at this specimen and Fig. 2 of the same plate (V. 21552) suggests two specific forms, but on close inspection of the two specimens a difference in breadth of the ultimate divisions appears to be the only real distinction, and, in view of the correspondence in habit, this alone is hardly of sufficient importance to necessitate a separate species. Lccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. VO2731. Plies. %: This affords a good example of a small and compact type of ?frond, which differs only in size from the larger and commoner specimens. On the same piece of rock is a piece of rhizome, Pl. X. Fig. 1. Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll. RUFFORDIA. 83 V. 2295. Pl. III. Fig 6. This specimen differs from V. 2781 in having the lower ? pinne in the fertile condition. The leaf lamina is considerably reduced, and the individual sporangia may be made out here and there, but without affording any reliable information as to the character of the sporangial walls. Possibly expression should be given to the smaller size of this and the preceding specimen by the institution of a new species or variety, but I am inclined to attach great importance to the fact that such a specimen as V. 2157, Pl. IV. shows the same habit and essential features as these smaller and more delicate forms. There is a distinct resemblance between this specimen and a fertile pinna figured by Fée' as Aneimiehotrys aspera from Brazil. Cf. Pl. V. Fig. 3a (V. 2156). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. We 21605 cb 1. V. Bigs 5. This specimen shows very clearly the characters of a fertile pinna. The general habit is much the same as that of Pl. V. Fig. 34 (V. 2156) and other specimens, but in this case, instead of the sharp margins of the pinnules characteristic of the sterile pinne, we find a certain ragged appearance in the ultimate segments, and irregular outlines to the blunt lobes. The surface of the pinnules is marked by numerous round projections, which are undoubtedly sporangia; these cover almost the whole surface of the ultimate segments, and, as far as it is possible to decide, closely agree in their manner of occurrence with those of Anemia. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. Wi 2812. Pl. X. Fig. 2: This specimen I regard as part of a rhizome of Ruffordia Goppertt; the surface has a rough appearance suggestive of scaly hairs, and to parts of it are attached the lower portions of petioles. On the same rock occur fragments of pinne of this species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. Zickel Xx. Fic; 1. This larger piece of rhizome has already been mentioned in the description of Pl. III. Fig. 5, which occurs in the same piece of ironstone. The surface has the same characteristic roughness 1 Crypt. Vasc. Brésil, pl. Ixxviii. 84 RUFFORDIA. shown in V. 2812, and here, too, portions of petioles occur attached to the main axis; the piece of frond represented in the figure cannot be traced to the rhizome, but the petiole agrees exactly with such basal portions as are actually attached; there can, therefore, be little or no doubt as to the connection between the rhizome and this frond fragment. The thin and flexuous petioles agree closely with those seen in Pl. V. Fig. 383 (V. 2156) and other specimens. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 1069. Breadth of the segments much the same as in Pl. V. Fig. 3. Near Hastings. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1885. V. 2152. Very similar to V. 1069, but less complete. Lccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2155¢ and V. 2155d. There is a very close agreement between these two fragments and Dunker’s figures of Sphenopteris Gipperti in his Wealdenbildung, Pl. IX. Fig. 1. Cf. also Pl. V. Fig. 34 (V. 2156). V. 2155¢. A badly preserved specimen. Cf. Pl. V. Fig. 33. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2157a. Of the same type as Pl. V. Fig. 34 (V. 2156), but somewhat smaller. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2167. Practically identical with V. 2351. In this specimen and several others there are closely associated fragments of pinne, of which the ultimate segments show a marked variation in size ; also portions of fertile fronds. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2192. One fertile pinna and a portion of a second. The individual sporangia are seen on some of the pinnules. This specimen agrees in all points with Pl. III. Fig. 6 (V. 2295) and Pl. III. Fig. 5 (V. 2781). Cf. also Pl. V. Fig. 3a (V. 2156) and Pl. V. Fig. 5 (V. 2160). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2228. Badly preserved fragments of pinne with narrow ultimate segments. Cf. V. 2157, Pl. 1V. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2341. The same as V. 2781. On the same rock is a fragment of Acrostichites Ruffordi, sp. noy. Kcclesbourne. Rufford Coll. RUFFORDIA. 85 V. 2351. Agrees with V. 2354, except in the slightly greater breadth of the ultimate divisions. Venation distinct. Associated with this fragment are others of a much more narrowly segmented form; this juxtaposition on the same rock-surface of pieces of fronds showing considerable difference in the breadth of the pinnules is of common occurrence. Kcclesbourne. ufford Coll. V. 2354. Part of a larger frond, with the pinne somewhat farther apart than in most cases; the segments are of median breadth and agree closely with the pinnules of other specimens referred to this species. This specimen appears to show the quadripinnate character of the frond. V. 23542. Rachis showing sub-opposite and alternate pinne ; pinnules short and of medium breadth; a more open habit than in most specimens. Hcclesbourne. Rufford Coll. The following specimens illustrate various forms of Ruffordia Goépperti (Dunk.), but show no characters other than those to which reference has already been made in the descriptions of more perfect examples. V. 2151, V. 2152, V. 2153 (several specimens), V. 2156. Cf. Pl. V. Fig. 33 (V. 2156), also Pl. V. Fig. 4 (V. 2248), V. 21662, V. 2294. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2877. Fragments of the coarser and finer forms of pinne. Near Hastings. Beckles Coll. 2.—Ruffordia Gopperti, var. latifolia. As a convenient method of expressing the difference between the extreme forms of this species, characterized by the greater breadth of the ultimate segments, and those with narrowly linear segments, such as the specimen figured in Pl. LV. (V. 2157), I have decided to designate the more broadly-lobed forms by the term Jatzfolia. V. 2333. Pl. VI. Figs. 1 and 1a. The portion of the frond figured may possibly be a basal pinna. The close resemblance between such specimens as this and Spieio- 86 RUFFORDIA. pteris acrodentata, Font., suggested a reference of the English forms to this Potomac species, but, on carefully looking through the large series of specimens in the National Collections, it is impossible to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to where the line of demarcation should be drawn expressive of specific differences. There is undoubtedly a very marked difference between Pl. VI. Fig. 1 and the specimen represented in Pl. IV., but this is rather a divergence suggestive of two varieties than one to be regarded as of specific value. If we had only these two extreme forms to deal with, there would be no hesitation in speaking of them as distinct species, but, as already pointed out, we have a large number of intermediate forms which, in my opinion, bridge over the apparent gap between the ends of the series. The chief differences between such specimens as Pl. VI. Fig. 1 and the forms of Ruffordia Gépperti previously described, consist in the greater breadth of the ultimate segments and the more open character of the pinne. The venation of the pinnules is very distinctly shown in the figured specimen, Pl. VI. Fig. 1a; the veins are flabellately disposed and repeatedly forked; the margin of the pinnules are, for the most part, distinctly dentate. Cf Fontaine’s figure of S. acrodentata, pl. xxxiv. figs. 4 and 4a; also Mantell’s figure of S. Phillipswi.’ On the same piece of ironstone, associated with the sterile portions of a frond, occur fragments of small fertile fronds ; also several pieces of fronds with the rachis tripinnately branched and showing very little leaf lamina, the serrate divisions of the ultimate branches recalling, to some extent, Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Possibly these different fragments belong to the same plant, but of this there is no real evidence. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2355. The rachis and venation of the pinnules distinctly shown. Very similar to V. 2333, but the segments somewhat narrower. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2158, V. 2827, V. 2357, V. 2357a. These specimens are regarded as fragments of the same variety. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Potomac Flora, p. 90, pl. xxxiv. fig. 4. 2 Geol. 8.E. England, p. 239, fig. 2. CLADOPHLEBIS. 87 B. Genera which afford no trustworthy evidence as to their affinities with existing families. Genus CLADOPHLEBIS, Brongniart. [Tableau, 1849, p. 25.] Brongniart, in his ‘‘ Histoire des végétaux fossiles,” ' arranged the numerous species of his genus Pecopteris in several groups, and one of these he called NMeuropterides. In a later work? this group is reconsidered, with the result that the new generic term Cladophlebis is substituted for those species of Pecopterts included in the Neuropterides. He regards Cladophlebis as a transitional form between Pecopteris and Neuropteris, and points out its charac- teristics without giving any definite diagnosis. Fontaine, in his ‘‘ Potomac Flora,’ retains Brongniart’s genus, and speaks of the convenience of referring certain sterile fronds to such a genus where venation is the guiding character;* he refers to Saporta as the first to put into a concise definition the distinguishing features of Cladophlebis. The following diagnosis is from Saporta’s important work on the Jurassic plants of France*:— “‘Frons pinnatim divisa, pinnule ab alterutra discrete vel vix inter se cohewrentes rachi tota basi adnate aut plus minusve con- tracte subque auriculate integre rariusve dentate; nervuli e nervo medio orti apicem versus attenuati vel evanidi primum obliqui, dein curvati furcatoque divisi.” As Saporta remarks, this genus is founded on venation characters and is, therefore, artificial; but like other similarly constituted genera it is useful for the reception of those ferns the botanical affinities of which are at present unknown. This author includes under Cladophlebis the widely distributed Pecopteris Whitbyensis, Brong., Asplenites Résserti, Schenk, ete. Schimper, in 1874, gave a more exhaustive definition of the same genus, and drew attention to the fact that Saporta’s de- 1 p. 320. 2 Tableaux, p. 26. SpeiGi. Pal. Frane, sér. ii. vol. i. 18738, p. 298. 5 Trait. pal. vég. vol. ili. p. 513. 88 CLADOPHLEBIS. scription agrees with that previously given by himself of the group of Jurassic ferns of the type Alethopteris Whitbyensis. Fontaine slightly modifies Schimper’s definition, and suggests that with the addition of ‘‘midnerve strong at base, and towards the summit dissolving into branches,’’ we have a well-defined group of ferns ‘strongly characteristic of the Jurassic, and which is fully as much entitled to be called a genus as is Sphenopteris or Pecopteris.’”! In his more recent contributions to the French Jurassic flora, Saporta continues to make use of Cladophlebis as a genus, and adds that the Carboniferous species originally included by Brong- niart in his group Pecopteris Neuropteridis, for which the term Cladophlebis was subsequently proposed, have nothing in common with the Liassic and Oolitic species of that genus. The Jurassic species, he observes, give evidence of common characters which point to a well-marked type [ Cladophlebis tenuis (Brong.), C. Whit- byensis (Brong.), C. ligata (Phill.), C. Hatburnensis (Lindl.), C. lobifolia (Lindl.), and several others, ‘‘se ressemblent entre eux et témoignent d’une parenté tenant au moins, a leur physionomie commune”’].* Granting the existence of these common characters there is still, as Saporta, indeed, recognizes, no evidence from such traces of fructification as occur of any true relationship (‘‘con- généres’’); indeed, the fructification, so far as it is known at all, points to the inclusion of ferns of different families under this single generic name. We may adopt Schimper’s definition, with certain modifications : Fronds pinnately divided, pinne spreading, lobes or pinnules attached by the entire base or slightly contracted towards the place of attachment, rarely somewhat auriculate, acuminate, or obtuse, occasionally dentate, especially at the apex, not rarely subfalcately curved upwards, midrib strong at base, and towards the summit dissolving into branches, secondary veins given off at a more or less acute angle, dichotomous a little above the base, and repeatedly dichotomous. It should be noted with reference to the present genus that Heer‘ has included under Asplenium those Jurassic ferns which 1 Potomac Flora, p. 67. 2 Pal. Franc. sér. ii. vol. iv. p. 357. 3 Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 513. 4 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iv. 1877, p. 38. CLADOPHLEBIS. 89 were formerly called Pecopteris, and more recently Cladophlebis ; the type of the Jurassic Asplenium being Pecopteris Whitbyensis, Brong. He figures in support of this wholesale removal to Asplenium fragments of fertile pinnules which, so far as the figures indicate, possess a similar arrangement of sori to that of Asplenium (sub-genus Diplazium).' Schenk has also figured fertile pinnules of the same type in the case of an allied form, Asplenites Résserti.’ 1.—Cladophlebis longipennis, sp. nov. Type. Pinnee and portion of rachis. Pl. IX. Figs. 1 and 1a. Frond bipinnate, pinne long, linear lanceolate, with strong and prominent axes; pinnules separate, slightly constricted at the base, rhomboidal, nervation of the characteristic Cladophilebis type. _ The chief distinguishing marks of this species are the shape of the pinnules, and the long gradually tapering pinne. Such specimens as occur in the Museum Collection do not throw much light on the general habit of the whole frond. Dunker’s species,’ Pecopteris Geinitzi7, should be compared with the present species; the two agree to some extent in the form of the pinnules and venation, but in C. dungipennis the pinne are much longer, more tapering and graceful than the shorter and stiffer pinne shown in Dunker’s figure. In the much smaller form figured by Schenk‘ there is the same kind of likeness in the pinnules, and the pinne approach more closely to those of the English species, but, on the whole, there is not sufficient reason to include the latter in the North German form as defined by Dunker. Ettingshausen and Debey founded a new genus, Dichymosaurus, for the reception of a characteristic type of fern from the Aachen Chalk, and defined it as follows® :— _ “Sori duo, dorso medio venarum infimarum utriusque lateris 1 Pl. xxi. figs. 3 and 4. 2 Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, p. 51, pl. vii. figs. 7 and 7a. 3 Wealdenbildung, p. 6, pl. viii. fig. 3. 4 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxix. figs. 2 and 2a. 5 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. xvi. 1859, p. 186. 90 CLADOPHLEBIS. inserti, orbiculares. Frondes bipinnate, dichotome. Ven sim- plices vel varius furcatz.”’ They include this genus in the Gleicheniacee. The nervation appears to be very imperfect, but the median vein is nearly always clear up to the apex of the pinnule. The figures 1, 2 and 3 of these authors, and also some specimens figured by Ettings- hausen from the Cretaceous beds of Niederschéna, resemble rather closely some of the English examples of Cladophlebis longipennis.* In the absence of any satisfactory evidence in the Aachen species as to affinity with Gleicheniacee, and in the face of certain differences in the arrangement and shape of the pinnules in the English fragments, it is better not to commit oneself to a definite family, but for the present, at least, to retain the provisional name Cladophlebis. Cladophlebis virginiensis, Font.,? shows in some of its pinnules a form and venation very similar to those of C. longipennis, but there is probably no true affinity. Compare also for certain fern frag- ments which I am inclined to consider identical with C. Dunkeri ; the figure of P. obtusifolia, L. and H.,* which is included by Phillips under P. exilis, and the pinne of the latter species probably represent some other fern than that figured by Yokoyama. His specimens cannot well be separated from the present species. Nathorst compares his species, P. Geyleriana, from Japan, with P. exiliforme, Gey. (=P. exilis of Yokoyama); this, too, appears to me inseparable from C. Dunkeri. Cf. Nathorst, pl. iv. figs. 2—-6,° and Pl. VII. Fig. 3 of the present Catalogue. The fragment mentioned by Nathorst as Pecopteris, sp.,° is compared by him to P. exilis and P. Dunkeri. 1 Paleeontographica, vol. xxiii. 2 Potomac Flora. 8 Geol. Yorks. p. 210, pl. viii. fig. 16. This species has recently been referred to a new genus, Klukia, Raciborski, Bot. Jahrb. vol. xiii. 1891, p. 4. 4 Fossil Flora, vol. iii. pl. clviii. 5 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. 1890. 6 Ibid. pl. vi. fig. 4. CLADOPHLEBIS. 103 In Saporta’s species, Scleropteris dissecta, we have a similar form of frond to that of C. Dunkert, as regards general outline, but, as Saporta points out in his definition of the genus, the venation is distinct. The terminal portions of pinne which served as Dunker’s type for P. Browniana might almost be included in P. Dunkeri, but the more perfect specimens figured by Schenk in his earlier contribution to the Wealden Flora make the retention of the species advisable. Wi 23%(enPl. VIL. Big. 3. Portions of large pinne; pinnules distinct, but venation difficult to determine. Compare this specimen with Schenk’s figures 3—5, pl. xxvi.,? also Nathorst’s figures of Pecopteris Geyleriana, ete. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2185. The two specimens with this registered number have entire pinnules gradually passing into small pinne. They show, in places, the habit of C. Albertsiz (Dunk.), but cannot be separated by any distinct features from other specimens which agree with the typical form of the species. Kcclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 21932. Same form as the figured specimen V. 2377. Ececles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2194. This shows the spreading habit of the frond, and a passage from the bipinnate to the tripinnate form. Details not very distinct. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2219 and V. 2345. Fragments of pinne ; both of them agree with Schenk’s figure, pl. xxvi. fig. 1,* and here the small pinnules are nearly at right angles to the rachis. Some of the pieces, ¢.g. in V. 2345, differ from such specimens as V. 2377, in having their ultimate divisions smaller and more at right angles to the axes of the pinne, but by comparing them with V. 2382, etc., we appear to have a gradual transition to the normal type. There is a difference in the matrix in this case which doubtless has much to do with the apparent divergence in form. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Pal. Frang. vol. i. 1873, p. 365, pl. xlviil. fig. 1. 2 Paleontographica, vol. xxiii. 3 Ibid. vol. xix. 104 SPFHENOPTERIS. V. 2224. A very delicate specimen, possibly a young form of C. Dunkert. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2731. This impression on a sandstone matrix has a different appearance to those specimens preserved in clay or slate, but the differences are, I believe, rather apparent than real; and, con- sidering the effect of a change in the manner of preservation, it would be unwise to institute an additional species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 725. Near Hastings. Dawson Coll. V. 1069¢. Ecclesbourne. Presented by P. Rufford, Esq., 1885. V. 2185, V. 2193—cf. V. 2377, Pl. VII. Fig. 3, V. 2195, V. 2208, V. 22120, V. 2213, V. 2372, V. 2382, show rachis and alternate pinnee. Kcclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 3527. Weald. Mantell Coll. 51404. Tunbridge Wells. Purchased. Genus SPHENOPTERIS, Brongniart. [Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vol. viii. 1822, p. 2383.] Brongniart, in 1822, suggested a subdivision into five sections, or subgenera, of Schlotheim’s comprehensive genus /i/icites. The name Sphenopteris was proposed by him for those ferns characterized by cuneiform pinnules, with rounded or lobed terminations, and with veins palmately disposed, or radiating from the base of the pinnule. The fossil taken as the type of this subgenus was S. elegans, Brong. In the ‘‘Prodrome d’une histoire des végétaux fossiles,”’ Brongniart defines his genus as follows’ :— ‘‘Fronde bi- ou tripinnée; pinnules rétrécies a la base, non adhérentes au rachis, plus ou moins profondément lobées; lobes divergens, presque palmés; nervures paroissant presque rayonner de la base de la pinnule.” The author of the genus points out the comprehensive nature of Sphenopteris, in that a large number of recent fern genera, 1 p. 00. SPHENOPTERIS. 105 belonging to several families, are necessarily included in the definition which he has given." Since Brongniart’s time Sphenopteris has been subdivided by various writers into separate subgenera or genera. In such cases where the subdivision has been founded upon characters which are clearly of taxonomic value, the new terms proposed ought to be accepted as useful additions towards a rational classification of fossil ferns. On the other hand, to multiply terms for genera founded on characters admittedly of doubtful value, is hardly calculated to advance our knowledge of the botanical affinities of fossil forms. As an instance of such grouping we may refer to Schimper,’ who has instituted several types of Sphenopteris, based on resemblances of the purely vegetative organs to the fronds of existing genera. Until we know more of the fructification of fossil ferns, it is safer, and more consistent with our endeavours to avoid further unnecessary increase in the list of generic terms, already sadly too long, to make use of such genera as Sphenopteris under the older and more comprehensive sense. As evidence accumulates which is of real value, we shall sooner or later be in a position to make use of those standards of comparison which, in the case of recent ferns, are recognized as the most trustworthy bases for family and generic classification. For convenience sake the provisional genus Sphenopteris may be defined as follows :— Herbaceous plants, fronds bi- or tripinnate, venation of the types Sphenopteridis, Ctenopteridis, or Cyclopteridis; pinnules lobed, dentate or entire, tapering towards the point of attachment to the rachis, form varied, but frequently cuneate. Whilst making use of a definition such as this we must bear in mind that Sphenopteris, as a genus, is founded on general characters, and such as recur in distinct families and genera. Fontaine,* in the ‘Potomac Flora,” has called attention to the provisional nature of this genus; but, unfortunately, in his frequent use of recent generic names there does not always appear to be sufficient data to warrant a departure from the older, if less scientific, terminology. 1 Hist. vég. foss. p. 169. ? Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. 1869, p. 371. 3 Potomac Flora, p. 89. 106 SPHENOPTERIS. Potonié,’ in a recent part of his serial papers on Carboniferous ferns, has promised a revision of the genus Sphenopteris. 1.—Sphenopteris Fontainei, sp. nov. Type. Piece of a?frond. British Museum. PI. VII. Fig. 2. Frond delicate, tripinnate, pyramidal in form; pinne alternate, approximate, on a slender rachis; pinnules deeply dissected, ultimate divisions narrowly linear, with bluntly terminated apices. Venation of Sphenopteridis type. Under this species a few specimens are included which have a certain amount of resemblance to the more finely-divided forms of Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.), but differ in the much smaller size of the ultimate segments, and in their more compact habit. In the absence of any trace of fructification it will be better to keep the provisional genus Sphenopteris. Compare the specimens mentioned below with Figs. 5 and 6 (V. 2295 and V. 2781), Pl. III. of Ruffordia Gépperti, also, as regards habit, with Onychiopsis elongata (Geyler);* S. Fontainec suggests, to some extent, the latter species in miniature. I have ventured to name this species after the author of the ‘Potomac Flora,’ who has made such valuable contributions to our knowledge of North American Mesozoic floras. We. 2150,, cl: Vil; Bie... Part of one side of a ? frond, with the details fairly well shown. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2152. More of the frond shown than in the former specimen, but the details less distinct. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2295. Two specimens very similar to V. 2155; also the fragments V. 2154 and V. 2358. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Jahrb. k. preuss. Geol. Landesanst, 1889, p. 21. 2 Pl. Il. Fig. 2. For more complete specimens refer to Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. pl. ii. SPHENOPTERIS. 107 2.—Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov. Peyton. 2); PL. vil. head] 1836. Sphenopteris gracilis, Fitton, Trans. Geol. Soc. vol. iv. ser. ii. pt. ii. p- 103. 1849. Pachypteris gracilis, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107. 1852. Pachypteris gracilis, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 24. 1864. Asplenium paleopteris, Unger, Reise Fregatte Novara, vol. i. Abth. Hesped; ple i fig. 4. 1893. ? Sphenopteris Delgadoi, Saporta, Rey. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, p. 270, pl. iv. fig. 5. Type. Part of afrond. British Museum. Pl. VI. Fig. 2. Frond ovato-lanceolate, bipinnate; pinne linear acuminate, alternate; pinnules alternate, ovate acuminate to deltoid, de- current, with entire, slightly dentate or deeply lobed margin. Venation of the Sphenopteridis type. in a paper read before the Geological Society in 1827 Dr. Fitton briefly described a Wealden fern from near Tunbridge Wells, which he subsequently figured under the name of Sphenopteris gracilis." At the time when Fitton’s paper was read no species of that name had been described, but before his work appeared in the Geological Transactions, Brongniart had referred a Carboniferous fern to the genus Sphenopteris under the name S. gracilis. In a later work Brongniart refers Fitton’s species to Pachypteris gracilis. The specimen which Fitton figured as the type of Sphenopteris gracilis is in the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn-street. No doubt the impression has suffered to some extent since 1836; the specimen no longer shows the form of the pinnules with the clearness of outline represented in the figure. The general habit of the frond is, however, faithfully reproduced. In some of the pinnules there are slight indications of a midrib, and an occasional suggestion of dentate margins. I propose to retain the original generic name Sphenopteris, and, in view of the fact that the term gracilis has been applied to 1 Fitton, Trans. Geol. Soc. vol. iv. ser. ii. pt. ii. p. 108. 108 SPHENOPTERIS. another type of Sphenopteris, it may not be unfitting to adopt the new specific designation S. Fitton?. Dunker refers to Fitton’s description of S. gracilis under the head of S. Mantelli, Brong. ; * Schenk,? Heer,? and Carruthers‘ follow Dunker’s example in regarding S. gracilis as a synonym of S. Mantelli. Schimper ° also includes Fitton’s species under S. Mantelli, and Ettings- hausen® mentions Pachypteris gracilis under S. Mantelli. In the Rufford Collection there are a few specimens, which will be described more fully below, closely corresponding with Fitton’s figure, and which demonstrate by their more perfect form the correctness of his opinion that the Tunbridge Wells fern is really a different species from Brongniart’s type, S. Dantelli. One of the two species of ferns Asplenium paleopteris, Ung., mentioned in the introduction as described by Unger from New Zealand, comes exceedingly near S. Mittont. The resemblance is especially striking in the case of Unger’s pl. 1. fig. 4;’ the other figures are enlarged and, to some extent, restored drawings. The species is compared by its author to Sphenopteris tenera, Dunker, a form now referred to Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong). It is difficult to understand on what grounds this New Zealand species was named Asplenium, as no trace of fructification appears to have been found. Possibly it is somewhat rash to absorb Unger’s species into one so far separated from it geographically, but the close agree- ment between the two forms must be advanced in justification of this step. The specific name palaopteris has, of course, the priority as compared with that of /:¢étonz, but the fragments on which Unger founded his species were exceedingly small and imperfect, and far inferior to the specimens from which the definition of S. Fittont has been constructed. An additional reason for the adoption of the latter name is the fact that Fitton was the first to describe and figure the type specimen, which he called S. gracilis, which term Wealdenbildung, p. 3. Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 209. Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 12. Geol. Sussex, 1878, p. 282. Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 469. Abh, k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 24. Reise Fregatte Novara. ~_ ao oa - ao 0 - SPHENOPTERIS. 109 would have been retained had there not been a Carboniferous fern of the same name. In looking at the specimen (V. 2242), Pl. VI. Fig. 2, and at that figured in Pl. VII. Fig. 1 (V. 2827), or the one with still more deeply lobed pinnules (V. 2327a), Fig. 10, p. 111, we seem to have two distinct species represented by these extreme forms. A careful examination of the several specimens included under the present species clearly demonstrates a gradual transition from one form to another, and I am unable to draw any satisfactory line between the various forms of fronds. The resemblance of certain specimens to species already described from other localities and horizons is pointed out in the descriptions of the individual fragments. Some of the specimens I was at first disposed to place under Sphenopteris Pichleri, Schenk,! as more perfect examples of that fern than appear to have been available when the species was instituted. It is extremely difficult to decide in certain cases whether the better course is to separate specimens by distinct names when they differ in the details of form shown by the ultimate segments, or to include them under one name. Neither plan will lead to final and satisfactory results so long as we have only fragments of sterile fronds and pinne to guide us. On the whole the inclusion of these frond specimens in S. /ttoni appears to me the preferable course, which may or may not be justified by the acquisition of more perfect material. In speaking of S. Pichleri, Schenk draws attention to the Hymenophyllaceous appearance of the pinnules; this same filmy character is well seen in some of the English forms of S. Fittonz, especially in the case of V. 2327a, shown in Fig. 10, p. 111. The chief differences between the specimens of S. /vtton?, which have some resemblance to S. Pichler, Schenk, also S. Cordai, Dunk.,? and the type specimen figured by Fitton, consist in the more divided pinnules and the more filmy nature of the lamina; the latter character is, however, not very trustworthy, as it may be only apparent and really due to differences in the rock matrix, thus being simply an accident of preservation rather than an original character. In addition to the species referred to below as resembling in a greater or less degree S. Lttont, there may be mentioned 1 Paleontographica, vol. xxiii. p. 166, pl. xxix. figs. 2-5. 2 Tbid. vol. xix. p. 210. 110 SPHENOPTERIS. Thyrsopteris inequipinnata, Fontaine,’ Sphenopteris Bunburianus,? O. and M., and S. fragilis, Heer. V. 2242. Pl. VI. Fig. 2. The figure of this specimen shows very clearly the general habit of S. Hittoni. The venation of the pinnules cannot be made out in the figured specimen, which is in the form of a thin carbonaceous impression on a clay matrix; in the ironstone specimens the venation is often remarkably distinct. The shape of the pinnules is very similar to that in S. pluri- nervia,* Heer, or Scleropteris Pomelli,’ Saporta, but the resemblance is confined to details, rather than pointing to a close agreement of the ferns as a whole. The pinnules of the lower part of the frond shown in the figure have distinctly serrate or lobed margins. This character becomes much more pronounced in other specimens, which probably repre- sent pinne from the more basal part of a frond. LEcclesbourne. Rufford Coll. WViigeer. El. VOL. wie, Al. This specimen is preserved on a fine-grained ironstone, and shows the details of the pinnules much more clearly than V. 2242. So far as it is possible to arrive at a conclusion from the available material I am in favour of including this and similar specimens with those of the form represented in Pl. VI. Fig. 2. The greater lobing of the ultimate segments is probably merely an extension of the marginal indentations referred to in the lower pinne of V. 2242. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2327a. Woodcut, Fig. 10. Here the pinnules are still more divided, and the ultimate lobes have a truncate appearance. Length of pinnule about 4 mm. The venation is shown with remarkable distinctness and much more clearly than in the majority of the specimens. 1 Potomac Flora, p. 142, pl. lvii. figs. 3 and 8. 2 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. i. ser. ii. pt. ii. p. 78, pl. xxxii. This species is described by Feistmantel as Hymenophyllites Bunburyanus (O. and M.). 3 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. iii. 1875, p. 34, pl. ii. fig. 20. 4 Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 13, pl. xi. fig. 6; pl. xv. fig. 8. 5 Pal. Frang. vol. i. 1873, pl. xlvi. fig. 1. SPHENOPTERIS. WAU The figure gives the impression of a filmy fern, and in the light brown stain on the rock surface, representing the leaf lamina, we have just that kind of imprint which might be looked for in a Hymenophyllaceous type of fern. Attention has already been called to the danger of trusting too much to such resem- blances, which are frequently nothing more than expressions of Fia. 10 (V. 2327a). Enlarged 4 times. the different effects of the diversity in texture and porosity of the rock matrix. The single pinnule shown in the woodcut agrees very closely with one figured by Potonié! in a Carboniferous fern, Sphenopteris Haninghausi, Brong., var. Larischiformis, Pot.; but it is not for a moment suggested that the two species have any natural affinity whatever. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2162. Woodcut, Fig. 11. Probably a pinna from the basal portion of a frond. Pinnules ovato-lanceolate and lobed. The venation is fairly distinct, but, as is usually the case with carbonaceous impressions on clay, not nearly Fie. 11 (V. 2162). Enlarged 3 times. so well marked as on the ironstone. The figure shows a median, and less marked lateral veins. Some of the pinnules in Fitton’s type specimen correspond fairly closely with those represented in 1 Jahrb. k. preuss. Geol. Landesanst, 1890, p. 23, pl. vii. 1019 SPHENOPTERIS. the adjoining woodcut. Cf. Unger’s figure of Asplenium paleo- pteris, pl. i. fig. 4," and the fragments of Sphenopteris Delgadoi, figured by Saporta.? Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 724. Small fragment; probably S. Pittond, Dawson Coll. V. 2161. Part of a lower portion of a frond. The pinnules distinctly lobed. This fragment is not unlike S. Pichleri,? Schenk, but in the latter the lobes are described as acute ; the small pieces figured by Schenk suggest rather a slender foundation for his species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2163. A fragment from the upper part of a frond. There are somewhat striking differences between this specimen and V. 2161 and V. 2162, but on comparison with the more complete example, V. 2242, Pl. VI. Fig. 2, there can be little doubt as to specific identity. Cf. Heer’s figure of S. plurinerviat from Portugal. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2164. Rachis 12 cm. long. Pinnules indistinctly preserved, but many of them are exactly the same as those of V. 2242, and others agree with the more deeply divided forms such as V. 2827, etc. The pinne are given off from the main rachis at almost a right angle. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2190. Part of a frond as an impression on ironstone. This affords another example of what I take to be the effect of the manner of preservation on the general appearance of the fossil. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2352. Here, again, some of the pinne are almost at right angles to the main axes: ¢f. V. 2164. There is a certain resem- blance to S. Gomesiana,> Hr.; also to S. Pichlert, Schenk, and, to some extent, to Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). 1 Reise Fregatte Novara. 2 Rev. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, pl. iv. fig. 5. 8 Paleeontographica, vol. xxiii. pl. xxix. figs. 2-5. 4 Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 13, pl. xi. fig. 6, ete. 5 Heer, loc. cit. p. 13, pl. xi. fig. 7. WEICHSELIA. 113 V. 2352a. This terminal fragment comes very near to 0. Mantelli (Brong.), but, if compared with V. 2163, it appears to be linked with S. Lttoni by well-defined characters. Eccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2356. Cf. V. 2327; also the terminal part of the frond with the tip of V. 2242. V. 2356a. Part of a frond. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2183. The two specimens with this registered number must probably be regarded as tips of S. Fvttoni fronds. V. 2372. On the same piece of rock is a specimen of Clado- phlebis Albertsi: (Dunk.). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2878. V. 2882. Fragments. Near Hastings. Beckles Coll. Genus WEICHSELIA, Stiehler. [Paleontographica, vol. v. 1857, p. 74.] The reasons for which this generic name is substituted for the older and better known term are stated in the description of Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Brongniart’s genus Lonchopteris, under which W. Mantelli has hitherto been included, is defined by him in the ‘Prodrome”’ as follows !:— ‘‘Fronde plusieurs fois pinnatifide; pinnules plus ou moins adhérentes entre elles & leur base, traversGes par une nervure moyenne ; nervures secondaires réticulées.” Schimper,’ in his definition of the same genus, adds ‘habitu Alethopterideo.” This Alethopteris habit is a recognized charac- teristic of the genus, and is complied with by the species figured by Brongniart in his ‘ Histoire,’ except in the case of the English and French Wealden forms.* The more perfect and larger portions of fronds from Russia and Germany, which are usually known under the generic title Weichselia, are without the 1 Prodrome, p. 49. 2 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 620. 3 Pl. cxxxi, etc. 114 WEICHSELIA. least doubt the same, or some nearly allied plant, as the smaller examples named by Brongniart Lonchopteris Mantelli. When the term Weichselia was proposed it was in ignorance of the fact that the pinnules of the species to which the new name was applied possessed reticulate venation, and would, therefore, come under the older venation genus Lonchopteris. Now that we know more as to the characters of these Weichselia fronds it is seen that, in spite of the resemblance founded on venation alone, there is a well- marked divergence from those species which Brongniart’s defini- tion of Lonchopteris correctly describes. The generic characters may be stated briefly thus :— Frond bipinnate, rachis broad and rigid, pinne long and with prominent axes, pinnules entire with obtuse apex, attached by the whole of their bases, distinct; venation of the Zonchopteris type. In the absence of what we may regard as satisfactory evidence for the existence of other species than W. Mantelli, I have included all the Weichselia forms under a single species. 1.—Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). 1824. Pecopteris reticulata, Stokes and Webb, Trans. Geol. Soc. vol. i. ser. ii, p. 423, pl. xlvi. fig. 5; pl. xlvii. fig. 3. 1825. Pecopteris reticulata, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt. iv. p. xx. 1827. Pecopteris reticulata, Mantell, Illust. Geol. Sussex, p. 56, pl. iii. fig. 5; pl. iii*. fig. 3. 1828. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brongniart, Prodrome, p. 60. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brongniart, Hist. vég. foss. p. 369, pl. cxxxi. figs. 4 and 5. 1832. Pecopteris reticulata, Passy, Départ. Seine-inférieure, p. 340, pl. xv. figs. 9 and 10. 1833. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 244, pl. i. fig. 3. 1836. Polypodites Mantelli, Goppert, Foss. Farrnkrt. p. 341. 1837. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Lindley and Hutton, Foss. Flor. pl. clxxi. 1838. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt. vii. p. 167. 1839. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Mantell, Wonders of Geology, vol. i. edit. iii. p- 371. 1844. Pecopteris sp., Auerbach, Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mose. 1844, pt. i. vol. xvii. p. 146, pl. v. figs. 10-11. 1845. Pterophyllwum Murchisonianum, Goppert, in Murchison’s Geol. Russia, vol. ii. p. 501, pl. G, figs. 4-6. Pterophyllum filicium, Goppert, loc. cit. pl. G, fig. 4. 1883. WEICHSELIA. 115 Polypodites reticulata, Unger, Syn. plant. foss. p. 93. Polypodites Mantelli, Unger, ibid. p. 98. Pecopteris Murchisoniana, Auerbach and Frears, Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mose. 1846, pt. i. vol. xix. p. 495, pl. ix. Pecopteris Auerbachiana, Rouillier, Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mosc. 1846, pt. ii. vol. xix. p. 412. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Mantell, Geol. Excurs. I. Wight, p. 287, fig. 21. Pecopteris Auerbachiana, Rouillier, Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mosc. 1847, pt. i. vol. xx. p. 4406. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl. vol. i. p. 667. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107. Polypodites Mantelli, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 166. Polypodites reticulatus, Unger, loc. cit. p. 166. Polypodites reticulatus, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. 3, No. 2, p. 17. ? Alethopteris recentior, Ettingshausen, loc. cit. p. 16, pl. ii. figs. 17 and 18. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 12. Anomopteris sp., Stiehler, Zeitschr. deutsch. geol. Ges. vol. vi. p. 661. Anomopteris Ludovice, Stiehler, Ber. Nat. Ver. Harz, p. 14. Anomopteris Ludovice, Weichsel, Ber. Nat. Ver. Harz, p. 26. Weichselia Ludovice, Stiehler, Paleontographica, vol. v. p. 75, pls. xii. and xiii. Pteris reticulata, Ettingshausen, Farrnkrt. Jetztwelt, p. 117. Weichselia Ludovice, Eichwald, Leth. Ross. yol. ii. sect. i. p. 21, Atlas (Pér. Moy.), pl. i. fig. 2. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 623. Weichselia Ludovice, Schimper, loc. cit. vol. i. p. 599. ? Alethopteris Ettingshausei, Schimper, Joc. cit. vol. 1. p. 569. Asplenites Klinensis (in part), Trautschold, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Mose. vol. xiii. p. 21, pl. xx. figs. 1 and 5-8. Polypodites (Lonchopteris) Mantelli, Trautschold, loc. cit. p. 82, pl. xix. fig. 8. Lonchopteris recentior, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 4, pl. i. figs. 2-6. Weichselia Ludovice, Heer, Neue Denkschr. Schweiz. Ges. Nat. vol. xxiv. p. d. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Dupont, Bull. Ac. R. Belg. vol. xlvi. sér. ii. p. 387. Lonchopteris recentior, Hosius and von der Marck, Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. pp. 201, 209, pl. xii. figs. 176-179; pl. xliv. figs. 190-191. Weichselia Ludoviee, Hosius and von der Marck, Joc. cit. p. 207, pl. xliii. figs. 187-188 ; pl. xliv. fig. 189. Cladophlebis nebbensis, Geinitz, Arch. Ver. Freund. Nat. Mecklenb. Jahr. xxxvi. p. 50. 116 WEICHSELTIA. 1883. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Renault, Cours bot. foss. vol. iii. p. 167. 1888. Weichselia Ludoviee, Schulze, Flor. subhercyn. Kreid. p. 14. 1889. Lonchopteris Mantelli, Bristow, Geol. I. Wight, p. 258. 1890. Weichselia erratica, Nathorst, Arch. Ver. Freund. Nat. Mecklenb. Jahr. xliv. p. 1, pl. i. figs. 1 and 2. 1890. Pecopteris Geyleriana (in part), Nathorst, Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. p. 49, pl. iv. fig. 3 (not the other figures of this species). Type. Fragments of pinne; pinnules showing venation. The specimens on which the genus Weichselia was founded are much larger, and consist of long pinne attached to a broad rachis; no venation shown. The first diagnosis of Weichselia Ludovice is that given by Stichler in 1857; the earlier definitions of the English species, Lonchopteris Mantelli, were founded on much smaller specimens than those which Stiehler had before him :— ‘“Frons bipinnata, expansa, maxima (5-6-8 pedalis); rhachis valida, profunde suleata, apicem versus tenuissime excurrens ; pinne terminales subverticales, elongatz, anguste lineares, remotze (distantes), reliquee horizontales, convex, approximate, lineari- lanceolate, ad 18 poll. usque longe, 3% poll. late, omnes basi discrete; pinnule perbreves, oblong, obtuse, integerrime, approxi- mate, fructiferee medio, canaliculate, ambitu contractz, steriles subplane.’’? The following definition includes most of the important characters in this peculiar type of fern :— Frond bipinnate, rachis broad and rigid, pinne alternate, very long, of uniform breadth and with prominent axes; pinnules entire with obtusely rounded apex, a midrib and reticulate secondary veins, oblong, except towards the distal ends of pinne, where they become more or less triangular in shape and have pointed apices, attached by the entire base, separate and not confluent; the stiff and thick pinnules are usually inclined towards the axis of the pinna, and the two rows form with the axis an open V instead of lying in a horizontal position. The earliest figures and description of Wechselia Mantelli (Brong.) are usually attributed to Mantell in the year 1824; the paper to which reference is made was written by Stokes and Webb, 1 Paleontographica, vol. v. 1857, p. 76. WEICHSELIA. ily and not by Mantell. These authors recognized the impossibility of determining botanical affinity in the absence of fructification, and placed the Wealden specimens in Brongniart’s artificial genus Pecopteris. The figures of Stokes and Webb are reproduced in Mantell’s ‘‘Tllustrations of the Geology of Sussex,” and, in addition, there is represented in pl. i. fig. 4 what may be part of a pinna of the same species. There are two figures with the same number; one of these is a leaf of Hymenophyllum Tunbridgense, Sw., but the other is not mentioned in the text, and may be Wetchselia Muntelli. In Brongniart’s ‘‘ Histoire,’! there is a figure of a French specimen from Beauvais much larger than the fragments pre- viously figured from the English Wealden. Brongniart draws attention to certain differences between the Wealden form of Lonchopteris and the Carboniferous species of the same genus. Lindley and Hutton’s figure shows a pinna from near Wansford, Northamptonshire, with a length of 6} inches; no venation is shown. In speaking of this species in the ‘‘ Wonders of Geology,” Mantell notes its occurrence in Sweden.? In the figure of Pecopteris Murchisoniana given by Auerbach and Frears the pinne are represented rather more at right angles to the main rachis than is the case in the English specimen figured in Pl. X. Fig. 8. In 1857 Stiehler described more fully the large specimens of fronds which he had previously referred to Brongniart’s genus Anomopteris, and, recognizing several points of divergence from that type of fern, he instituted the new generic term Weichselia. The fragments figured by Ettingshausen as Alethopteris recentior are small portions of pinne; the pinnules show very indistinct venation, but it is described as consisting of simple lateral veins at right angles to the midrib; if this be so, the inclusion of A. recentior in the synonomy of Weichselia Mantelli is incorrect. Schenk, from an examination of better material, considers that Ettingshausen’s fragments must be referred to Lonchopteris, and admits a difficulty in separating them from the specimens figured by Brongniart and others as Lonchopteris Mantelli. I prefer to follow Nathorst’s example and consider Ettingshausen’s species synonymous with Weichselia Mantelli. 1 Pl. exxxi. figs. 5 and da. 2 Wonders of Geology, vol. i. 1839, p. 371. 118 WEICHSELIA. In his paper! on the Klin Sandstone Trautschold founds a new species, Asplenites Klinensis, for certain specimens of fronds which, without any doubt, belong to the present species; his figs. 3 and 4, pl. xx. are less like the ordinary W. Mantelli forms, and may be a distinct species, or possibly smaller fronds of the same species. An inclination of the pinnules, similar to that to which attention has been drawn in the definition of the species, is noted in these Russian specimens. In some pinnules, e.g. pl. xx. fig. 7,? Trautschold represents what he describes as linear projections covering the lateral veins, and which he regards as sori; the venation in this figure is not reticulate, but the fragment is small and imperfectly preserved; in the larger specimens no venation is seen except a well-marked midrib. This author does not accept the name, Werchselia Ludovice, Stiehl., applied by Eichwald to the same specimens which were figured by the former as Asplenites Klinensis, Traut. Another of Trautschold’s species, Pecopteris nigrescens, pl. xix. fig. 4, suggests a large form of pinna of similar character to W. Dantelli (ef. Murchison’s ‘ Russia,” nly (Gy tig. 3). Hosius and von der Marck refer some small pieces of pinne to Lonchopteris recentior; those on pl. xlii. figs. 176-179* have not the stout prominent rachis which is so characteristic of W. Mantelli, and possibly are not correctly referred to that species. The larger portions of fronds represented in pls. xliii. and xliv. are exactly of the same form as the specimen (V. 2630) shown in Pl. X. Fig. 3 of this Catalogue. I have no hesitation in including some (pl. xliv. figs. 190 and 191) of the figures of Z. recentior and of Weichselia Ludovice (pl. xliii. figs. 187-188) under W. Mantelli. The frond shown in pl. xliv. fig. 1894 has no rachis preserved, and the pinnules are longer and narrower than the undoubted examples of this species given in pl. xliii. Renault,’ in speaking of JLonchopteris Mantelli, agrees with Schimper that it may belong to the genus Ptervs. In a recent paper by Nathorst a new name, Weichselia erratica, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. xiii. 1870, p. 21. Trautschold, Joc. cit. Palzeontographica, vol. xxvi. 1879. Hosius and von der Marck, Joe. cit. Cours bot. foss. vol. iii. p. 167. WEICHSELIA. 119 is proposed for a plant previously described by Geinitz as an example of Cladophlebis nebbensis (Brong.). In discussing this species Nathorst refers to the characteristic position of the pinnules, and speaks of them as inclined to one another like the wings of a resting butterfly; it is suggested that possibly this inclination of the pinnules towards the secondary rachis may be an adaptation for leading off the rain-water. After noting the reticulated nature of the venation, he suggests the advisability of retaining the genus Werchselia for the Lower Cretaceous form of Lonchopteris, the latter name being retained for such species as occur in the Coal-Measures.!. One of the ‘‘fertile pinne or pinnules”’ figured by Nathorst in another paper as Pecopteris Geyleriana, Nath., I venture to include under Werchselia Mantelli as a terminal fragment of a pinna. Nathorst also notes this resemblance.” There is certainly, as Brongniart recognized, a distinct difference between such species as Lonchopteris Brictt, etc.,> and L. Mantelli,* the former having the same habit as the genus Alethopteris, but differing in the reticulate venation. To emphasize the distinctive characters of the Wealden species, I have retained Stiehler’s generie name in preference to Brong- niart’s genus Lonchopteris. The form Lonchopteris virginiensis, Font.,° from the older Mesozoic strata of Virginia, should be retained in its present genus, as its affinities seem to be rather with the Paleozoic Lonchopteris than with the Lower Cretaceous Wetchselia. Stur considers Fontaine’s species to be the same as Spesrocarpus Haberfelnert, Stur, from the Lunz beds.® V. 2630. Pl. X. Fig. 3, and Woodcut, Fig. 12, p. 120. Only a portion of the specimen shown in the Figure. This specimen is in striking contrast to the ordinary fragmentary specimens of the species obtained from English localities. Rachis 18 cm. long, very broad and stout, pinne alternate, approximate, of considerable length, the longest 20 cm. The general habit of 1 Arch. Ver. Freund. Nat. Mecklenb. Jahr. xliv, 1890, p. 20. 2 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. lvii. 1890, p. 49. 3 Hist. vég. foss. pl. exxxi. figs. 2 and 3. 4 Thid. pl. exxvi. figs. 4-5. 5 U.S. Geol. Surv. Mon. vi. 1883, p. 53, pl. xxviii. figs. 1-2; pl]. xxix. figs. 1-4. § Verh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. No. 10, 1888, p. 7. 120 WEICHSELTIA. the frond is stiff and rigid; the axes of the pinne are, like the main rachis, prominent and broad. Pinnules strong and rigid, inclined to the surface of the slab and to the axes of the pinne. Venation clearly shown in some of the pinnules, e.g. those enlarged in the woodcut, Fig. 12. Towards the distal ends of the pinne, the pinnules become shorter and approach a more triangular or deltoid form, which is, however, more clearly seen in other specimens. Compare the figures of fronds by Stiehler, Trautschold, Hosius and yon der Marck, etc. A somewhat similar habit is seen in Saporta’s figure of Sclero- pteris Pomelit,! but the two species are probably in no sense related. Sussex. Beckles Coll. Fic. 12 (V. 2630). Pinnules of Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Enlarged 4 times. V. 2630a. Part of a frond showing a wide rachis with pinne. Sussex. Beckles Coll. V. 2173. Fig. 13. Portions of young pinne, or terminal pieces of older pinne showing smaller pinnules about 2:5 mm. in length, and of a different shape to the full-sized segments. Cf Stiehler, Paleontographica vol. v. pl. xiii. figs. 2ab; also a fragment figured by Nathorst in his “ Beitriige zur mesozoischen Flora Fie. 13 (V. 2178). Pinnules of Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Twice nat. size. Japans,” pl. iv. fig. 8, which he describes as possibly part of a fertile pinna of Pecopteris Geyleriana (= Cladophlebis Dunkert), but he recognizes at the same time a resemblance to Weichselia. 1 Pal. Frang. vol. iv. p. 423, pl. 285, fig. 7, and pl. 286, fig. 2 and figs. 6-7. WEICHSELIA. 12F V. 21730. Very similar to V. 2178. V. 21735. Fragments of the same form, showing venation. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 21742. Part cf a pinna showing very clearly the charac- teristic inclined position of the pinnules. Cf. Nathorst, Arch. Ver. Freund. Nat. Mecklenb. Jahr. xliv. pl. i. figs. 1 and 2. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2614. Fragments of pinne. In one of the pinne there is a gradual decrease in size apparent in the pinnules, the smaller and more terminal being more or less triangular in form. Cf. Fig. 13 (V. 2173). Sussex. Beckles Coll. V. 2618. One of the pinne shows especially well the venation of the thick and leathery pinnules. Sussex. Beckles Colt. V. 2620. An impression of a secondary rachis, showing very clearly its thick and stiff character. Sussex. Beckles Coll. V. 2636. Part of a long pinna, about 15 cm. Venation distinct. Sussex. Beckles Coil. 12421. A large slab with several fragments of pinne; showing in one corner part of a rachis with lateral axes attached. Hastings. Mantell Coil. The following specimens, consisting of portions of pinne, no doubt belong to the present species :—V. 26, Hastings, purchased ; V. 708, Ecclesbourne, purchased; V. 2174: Several specimens showing clearly the reticulately veined pinnules, Ecclesbourne, Rufford Coll.; 2832, 2835, 2837, 2838, 10846, Tunbridge Wells, Jantell Coll.; 51405, purchased 1867; 52942, Ecclesbourne, presented by EL. H. Peyton, Esq., 1886. 122 TNIOPTERIS. Genus TZENIOPTERIS, Brongniart. [Prodrome, 1828, p. 61.] Brongniart defines the genus Zeniopteris in his ‘‘ Histoire” as follows :— ‘* Folia simplicia integerrima, nervo medio crasso rigido, ner- vulis perpendicularibus simplicibus vel basi furcatis. Fructificatio punctiformis.”’! The same author, in his later work,? compares the genus with various recent ferns, and notes the resemblance of some specimens of Teniopteris vittata, Brong., to Oleandra; a resemblance which Schimper has given expression to in the case of some Teeniopteroid leaves by the adoption of the name Oleandridium. In Schenk’s definition of Teniopter’s, a genus which he places in the Marattiacee, it is described as having ‘“‘ Folia petiolata bipinnata.’”’* Saporta, following Brongniart’s original diagnosis, describes the fronds as usually simple, and considerably extends the generic definition’ :— ‘“‘Frondes plerumque simplices et tune petiolo valido instructs (rarius pinnatim composite) elongate toeniate lanceolate vel lingulatee nervo marginali cincte; costa media subtus crassa semiteres supra plus minusve gracilis; nervi secundarii plurimi e costa media sub angulo acuto exeuntes mox subito horizontales numerosissimi simplices vel sepius a basi pluries furcato-dichotomi usque ad marginem nerviformem recto tramite excurrentes. Fructificatio adhuc ignota aut punctiformis, soris punctiformibus totam paginam frondis inferiorem occupantibus.” He remarks that the exact definition of Zeniopterts constitutes one of the difficulties of fossil botany. The above diagnosis is more comprehensive than the description given by some authors of the same genus; the genus Oleandridiwm of Schenk is included by Saporta under the provisional and safer name instituted by Brongniart. Attention is drawn to the Teniopteroid form which is occasionally assumed by the genus WVilssonda, Brong.; but there 1 Hist. vég. foss. p. 262. ? Tableau, p. 21. 3 Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup.-Lias, p. 99. 4 Pal, Frang. vol. i. 1873, p. 430. THNIOPTERIS. 123 are certain distinctive features in the venation of the two genera which enable us to distinguish them in most instances. Heer’s! figures of Vilssonia ortentalis, Hr., probably represent a Teniopleris ; the apex of the leaf is like that of 7. Beyrichiit, Schenk, and the venation corresponds to 7. Dawsoni, sp. nov. The genus Oleandridium was founded by Schimper to include ferns with ‘‘Frondes simplices, lanceolato-elongatz vel lingulatz, coriacee. Fructificatio Aspidiacearum?’’? In Zittel’s ‘‘ Paleo- phytologie”’* this genus is described as differing from Zeniopteris by its more distinctly horizontal and stronger lateral veins which end in a marginal vein, and by the longer and more elliptical form of the leaf. Another writer‘ speaks of Oleandridium as comprising those leaves of the nervation type Zeniopteridis which have simple laminze not pinnately divided. It is unnecessary to suggest that there is a considerable amount of confusion and uncertainty about the two genera, Zeniopteris, Brong., and Oleandridium, Schimp. The latter name leads one to suppose some well-established affinity with the genus Oleandra. If specimens with fructification agreeing with that of the recent genus are found they might with advantage be so named, but to designate such a form of leaf, common among fossil ferns and common in recent genera, by names which imply affinities founded on external form and venation is utterly misleading. In adopting Schimper’s genus for a Chinese plant, Schenk® expressly states that he does not mean to convey the idea of a relationship with the recent genus Oleandra, but he makes use of the term Olean- dridium for the purpose of indicating a probable difference between the Tzeniopteroid ferns from Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks. It has been shown in a suggestive paper by White,® that we have a number of Teeniopteroid leaves, from rocks of different ages, which may be safely placed in such genera as Daneaites and others suggestive of botanic affinity; but in the absence of good evidence, either from fructification on the specimens them- FI. foss. Arct. vol. v. pl. iv. figs. 4-9. Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 607. Vol. i. p. 133. Solms-Laubach, Fossil Botany, p. 136. Paleontographica, vol. xxxi. 1885, p. 169. § Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. iv. 1893, p. 123. ao fF 6 YP 124 TH NIOPTERIS. selves, or from the close association of sterile and fertile leaves, it is much better to retain the ‘‘ convenient and non-committal genus Zeniopteris.” I propose, therefore, to use the generic term Teniopteris in a wider sense, and in this respect to follow Nathorst,! who has taken the safer course and included under this genus such other generic names as Oleandridium, Angiopteridium, Marattiopsis, Daneopsis, etc. In taking this view I am simply following the same plan as in the case of other provisional names such as Cladophlebis, ete. In dealing with such leaf-forms as come under the Tzeniopteroid type, it is especially important to wait for trustworthy taxonomic evidence before making use of names which imply close relationship or identity with existing genera ; the grounds for this caution are to be found in the numerous recent ferns which have leaves or leaf-segments of the Tzenio- pteroid pattern.? In Hooker’s ‘‘Genera Filicum’’* we find the name Zeniopteris applied to a recent fern, 7. Forbesti, Hook., from Mozambique. Following the example of Fée,‘ Hooker, in his later writings, includes this genus as a synonym of Vittaria.’ We may broadly define Zeniopteris as follows:—Frond simple or pinnate, usually lanceolate or linear-lanceolate, apex acute or occasionally obtusely terminated ; a well-marked midrib from which lateral veins are given off either at right angles or more or less obliquely; these may be unbranched or acutely forked as they pass towards the leaf margin. In an allied venation type, Phyllopteris, Brong., the lateral veins are much more oblique, more curved, and repeatedly forked. The task of naming the various fragments of Zendopteris in the Museum Collection has proved a difficult one, and, owing to the meagre nature of the specimens, it is almost impossible to arrive at any very satisfactory or definite results. In none of the examples are there any traces of sori, nor have we any opportunity of obtaining information as to the general habit of the plants, all the fragments being portions of detached leaves. Sver. Geol. Undersékn. 4to. Flor. Bjuf, 1878-1886. See also Fontaine’s species of Anomozamites, Potomac Flora, p. 67. Pl. lxxvi. B. Genera Filicum, p. 86. Species Filicum, vol. vy. 1864, p. 176. ao fF wo Nn eS TNIOPTERIS. 125 Tf we look over a number of specimens of the recent genus Oleandra, e.g. O. neriiformis, Cav., we find that such characters as the horizontal or inclined position of the lateral veins and the degree of closeness with which these veins are arranged, are by no means constant in the same species, or even in the same leaf. In all such examples of the recent genus as I have seen the apex of the leaf is acuminate, but occasionally in young leaves there appears to be a similar termination to that in Z. Beyrichit, Schenk. In some forms of Oleandra the leaf apex becomes suddenly and sharply acuminate; if the tip of such a leaf were broken off or bent back we should have an appearance very similar to that represented in Pl. IX. Fig. 3 of the present Catalogue. The following classification of the Wealden fragments must be regarded as provisional, and not one which rests on a very sure foundation. 1.—Teeniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk). 1871. Oleandridium Beyrichii, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 221, pl. xxix. figs. 6 and 7. 1874. Oleandridium Beyrichii, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 514. 1882. Oleandridium (Teniopteris) Beyrichii, Peyton, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxix. 1883, Proc. p. 3. Type. Well-preserved leaf. In the Berlin Collection. Schenk gives the following definition of the species !:— ‘Folia simplicia oblonga integra obtusa leviter emarginata basi attenuata, 5-8 millim. lata, 6} centim. longa, nervi primarii excurrentes, secundarii creberrimi tenuissimi angulo subrecto egredientes dichotomi vel simplices.” Frond simple, linear, entire, apex obtuse and slightly depressed, gradually decreasing in breadth towards the basal end; breadth about 5 mm. and length about 10 cm. Distinct midrib with numerous lateral veins almost at right angles, or somewhat oblique, and suddenly curved inwards towards the frond axis on the upper surface, simple or forked. 1! Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 221. 126 TH NIOPTERIS. I have slightly modified the original diagnosis in one or two particulars. Schenk points out that his species is readily distinguished from others by the form of the leaf. There is, however, a fairly close agreement between Z. Beyrichii, Schenk, and some specimens of T. tenuinervis, Brauns;' also 7. stenoneuwra, Schenk, as figured by Saporta,? and Zeniopteris (Stangerites) spatulata (McCleland).° It is extremely difficult to separate many of the forms of Teniopteris described by various writers from different geological horizons. In 1882 Peyton recorded the discovery by Mr. Dawson of a specimen which he referred to Schenk’s species, in the Wadhurst clay near Hastings. Other specimens were afterwards found by Peyton himself, who speaks of a slight divergence of the Hastings specimens from Schenk’s figured type. He describes the midrib as ‘‘herring-boned’’; this I regard as descriptive of the branching outwards of the lateral veins. V. 2381. Pl. [X. Figs. 3 and 3a. This specimen agrees very closely with Schenk’s figure, pl. xxix. fig. 7,4 except that in his specimen the lateral veins are rather closer together. Cf. ZL. (Oleandridium) obtusa, Nath.,° from the Bjuf plant beds, pl. viii. figs. 7, 9, 10, and 13. It seems almost impossible to separate such a specimen as Fig. 10, Pl. VIII. from 7. Beyrichit. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2172. Smaller specimen, 4 cm. long, 4mm. broad; indented apex. Practically identical with Schenk’s figure. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2177. Small fragments of the same species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 52942c. Venation not preserved. Possibly a fragment of 7. Beyrichii, Schenk. Presented by J. E. H. Peyton, Esq., 1886. 1 Brauns, Paleontographica, vol. ix. p. 50, pl. xiii. figs. 1-3. 2 Pal. France. vol. i. p. 443, pl. Ixii. figs. 2 and 3. 3 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. i. pt. i. p. 34, pl. vi. figs. 1-7. 4 Paleontographica, vol xix. 5 Sver. Geol. Undersikn, 4to. Flor. Bjuf, 1878. T HNIOPTERIS. 127 Tzeniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk), var. superba. The much larger size of some of the specimens and the closer arrangement of the lateral veins have led me to distinguish them from 7. Beyrichii, as a definite variety. Possibly, when better material is discovered, it will be necessary to separate those larger fronds as a separate species; for the present the specimens available are hardly sufficiently distinct to admit of more than a convenient descriptive term, such as var. superba. Saporta has already used the same word as a specific title, but we may use it in this instance in a less precise sense and in- dicative, at the same time, of a close resemblance to his Jurassic species, Z. superba, Sap.’ Fig. 14 (V. 27292). Fragment of a frond of Yeniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk), var. superba. V. 27290. Fig. 14. Thirty-four cm. long; apparently half of the lamina of a large simple frond. On one side of the half lamina there is the remains of a midrib, from which the closely set lateral veins are given off horizontally. Where small patches of a carbonaceous film occur on the surface of the specimen one can detect very fine lines running between, and parallel to, the lateral veins. Breadth 2°7 cm. at the broadest part. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll, V. 711. The prominent midrib represented by a deep groove, lateral veins closely arranged. Length of specimen 7°5 cm., 1:2 cm. broad, about the same width as the figured specimen of T. Beyrichii, Pl. 1X. Fig. 8, but the veins are much closer and more numerous. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2380. Portion of a large frond. Venation well marked. Cf. V. 2729a (Fig. 14). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Pal. Frang. vol. i. pl. lxii. fig. 1. 128 T ZNIOPTERIS. 2.—Teeniopteris Dawsoni, sp. nov. Type. Portions of simple fronds. In the British Museum. Fig. 15. In some of the Zeniopteris specimens from the Sussex beds there is a form of venation which clearly marks them off from the previous species. I propose to give expression to this dis- tinctive character by the institution of a new species named after Mr. Charles Dawson, whose name is already well known in connection with Wealden paleontology. It is quite possible that this species may eventually have to be regarded as another variety of 7. Beyrichit. Frond simple, lanceolate, midrib prominent with closely arranged lateral veins given off at an acute angle and passing straight to the margin without curving or branching. The fragment figured by Ettingshausen as 7. zocbingiana! shows oblique lateral veins, but these spring from the midrib at a more acute angle and have a distinctly curved course, thus differing from Z. Dawsoni. As Schenk has pointed out, the fragment on Fig. 15 (V. 2729). Fragment of frond of Teniopteris Dawsoni, sp. nov. which Ettingshausen’s species was founded is in all probability part of a Vewropteris pinnule ;* at all events it has little claim to be placed in the genus Zeniopteris, and none whatever to represent a new species. V. 2729. Woodcut, Fig. 15. On the same piece of rock there is a specimen showing the gradually tapering apical portion of a frond. 1 Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, pl. iii. fig. 19. * Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 222. SAGENOPTERIS 129 Lateral veins very regular and numerous. No sign of branching. Cf. Oleandridium Eurychoron, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xxxi. 1885, p. 168, pl. xiii. figs. 3-5 and pl. xv. fig. 2. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2383. Fragment showing the same type of venation. Fair- light. Rufford Coll. Genus SAGENOPTERIS, Presl. [Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, vii. 1838, p. 164.] The genus is thus defined in Sternberg’s Flora :— “Frons pinnata, pinnis ternatim rarius binatim compositis. Vene tenuissime, ramosissime, equales, in maculas irregulariter hexagonoides elongatas confluentes. Coste crassee usque ad apicem pinnularum excurrentes.”’ Schimper! speaks of Sagenopteris as having no analogue among living plants, but notes the obvious resemblance to MJarsilea; this, however, he does not regard as evidence of natural affinity. Stomata have been found on the lower surface of Sagenopteris, but, according to Schimper, there are none on the lower surface of Marsilea leaves. This argument is dismissed by Nathorst, who has observed stomata in the lower epidermal layer of J/arsilea; but the fructi- fication of Sagenopteris has been adduced as stronger evidence than the mere external resemblance in the leaves of the two plants. The so-called sporocarps are described by Nathorst? as abundant in the Rheetic beds near Palsjé; they cannot be referred to Conifers or Cycads, and, in the absence of Angiosperms, Nathorst is driven to regard them as the fructification of a Marsileaceous plant, and, therefore, of Sagenopteris, as the only genus that can be included in the Jarsileacee. The same conclusion was independently arrived at by Heer after examining the Swedish specimens.’ 1 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 640. 2 Foss. Fl. Schwedens, p. 18. 3 Nathorst, doc. cit. p. 18. 130 SAGENOPTERIS Similar bodies have also been described by Zigno’ from the Italian Oolitic strata, but his figures are anything but convincing. Schimper, in Zittel’s ‘‘ Handbuch,’’ considers there can scarcely be a doubt that we must regard Sagenopteris as a genus of the Rhizo- cerpe@, and very near to Marsilea. As Solms-Laubach* has shown, the arguments on which this reference of Sagenspteris to the Marsileacee is based are far from satisfactory. The two leaf fragments figured by Feistmantel* from the Karharbari beds of India as Sagenopteris (?) Stoliczana, Feist., have surely very little claim to be included in Presl’s genus. We may define the genus as follows :— Leaves with long stalk, bearing at the apex four palmately- placed leaflets; leaflets vary considerably in shape and size in the several species and on the same leaf, asymmetrical, linear- lanceolate, spathulate, ovate, etc. ; venation reticulate, the meshes elongated in the direction of the long axis of the leaflet; towards the basal end of the leaflets there is often a fairly well-defined midrib which rapidly splits up into a number of anastomosing branches as it passes towards the apex of the leaflet. Fructi- fication in the form of oval or spherical bodies bearing sporangia. Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunker). 1846. Cyelopteris Mantelli, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 10, pl. ix. figs. 4 and 5. 1849. Adiantites Mantelli, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107. 1850. Cyclopteris Mantelli, Unger, Gen. spec. plant. foss. p. 95. 1852. ? Cyelopteris Mantelli (in part), Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, p. 13, pl. iii. fig. 16. 1869. Aneimidiwn Mantelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 486. 1871. Sagenopteris Mantelli, Schenk, Paleeontographica, vol. xix. p. 222, pl. xxxi. fig. 5. 1874. Aneimidium Mantelli, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 486. 1886. ? Thinnfeldia variabilis, Velenovsky, Gymn. bohm. Kreid. p. 6, pl. ii. figs. 1-8. 1890. ? Sagenopteris, sp., Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. p. 38, pl. x. figs. 3 and 3a. 1 Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. i. p. 186, pl. xx. 2a Violtniepamlose. 5 Fossil Botany, p. 182. 4 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. iii. 1881, pt. i, (1879), p. 18, pl. xiii. fig. 4. SAGENOPTERIS 131 Type. Detached leaflets of various shapes and sizes. Dunker defines his species as follows’ :— “‘Cyclopteris fronde . . . . pinnis crassis subpetiolatis, oblique cordatis vel cuneato-subrotundis vel ovato-obtusis integris vel sub- crenatis, nonnullis apice sinuatis et bilotatis, nervis creberrimis flabellatis apicem versus irregulariter dichotomis.” The Wealden specimens enable us to give a more complete diagnosis of the species. Leaf consisting of four leaflets sessile on the apex of the leaf- stalk, palmately arranged, variable in shape and dimensions, the two upper or terminal leaflets larger than the lower pair, spathu- late, obovate or elliptical, margin entire, or with one or two broadly rounded lobes. Venation reticulate, the meshes elongated in the direction of the long axis of the leaf; in some leaflets there is a fairly distinct midrib near the point of attachment, but it rapidly dies out towards the apex; in some specimens no sign of a midrib. Fructification unknown. Dunker’s figures? of detached leaflets, if we accept his view that they all belong to the same species, sufficiently demonstrate the wide limits within which their form and size vary. The small specimens figured by Ettingshausen* agree much more closely with Aneimidium Klipsteini (Dunk.), and, indeed, he includes that species as a synonym of Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.). Possibly, as suggested in the above list of synonyms, one of the leaflets is that of the present species, but it is by no means certain that any of them should be included under the genus Sagenopteris. Schenk‘ points out the close connection between Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.) and S. rhovfolia, Presl; it seems, indeed, almost impossible to draw any distinct line between these two species. As a rule the leaflets of the former are smaller and less elliptical or elongated than those of the latter, but it is quite conceivable that the discovery of more Wealden specimens may compel us to recognize more definitely this close agreement between the two forms. 1 Wealdenbildung, p. 10. * Loe. cit. pl. ix. fig. 4. 3 Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth, iii. No. 2, p. 18. 4 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 223. 132 SAGENOPTERIS In Velenovsky’s contribution to our knowledge of the Gymno- sperms of the Bohemian Chalk formation there are several figures of what he calls Thinnfeldia variabilis, Vel.; the characters dis- played by this species appear to me identical with those of the larger leaflets of Sagenopteris Mantelli. There is the same venation, the same form of leaflet, and an equally marked variation in shape and size: ef. Velenovsky’s figures! and Pl. IX. Figs. 4 and 5 of this Catalogue. Why the genus Zhinnfeldia, Ett., should have been chosen is a question not readily answered ; no mention is made of a resem- blance to Sagenopteris, and there is a great dearth of references and synonomy, which is apparently not unusual in this author’s paleobotanical contributions. The definition given of this Bohemian species, which is classed under the Gymnosperms as ‘*species incertee sedis,’ describes correctly the characters of Sagenopteris Mantelli leaflets. The species is compared to Zhinn- Jeldia Lesquereuxiana, Heer ;* but this Greenland fossil has quite a different form, it shows a distinct midrib, and has no reticulate venation: the connection is not obvious. Hosius and Von der Marck® have figured a leaflet of Sagenopteris from the Neocomian Sandstone of the Teutoberger Wald under the name S. Neocomiensis, Hos. and V. d. Marck; this species closely resembles S. Mantelli, and differs only in having a more distinct midrib. A single leaflet from the Damuda series of India‘ also shows a close resemblance to the Wealden form; Feistmantel compares it to Sagenopteris rhoifolia, Presl. It is exceedingly difficult to arrive at any satisfactory results as to the limitation of the specific forms of Sagenopteris. . I have ventured to include under the Wealden species the Japanese fragments described by Yokoyama, as there are no apparent differences which suggest specific distinction. A new species has been recorded from Bornholm under the name S. Nathorsti, Barth.; there is a resemblance worthy of note between Bartholni’s fig. 9, pl. v.° and the lowest, broadly-lobed leaflet on the left-hand edge of Dunker’s fig. 4, pl. ix. 1 Gymn. bohm. Kreid. pl ii. figs. 1-5. 2 Fl. foss. Arct. vol. vi. pl. xliv. figs. 9-10. * Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. 1878, p. 210, pl. xliv. fig. 194. * Feistmantel, Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. iii. 1881, p. 114, pl. xliia. fig. 2. ® Bot. Tid. Bot. For. Kjévenhayn, 1892. SAGENOPTERIS 133 V. 2272. PI. TX, Fig. 4. Five leaflets are shown in this specimen, but the middle one of the upper three projects beyond the others, and its median line lies somewhat across those of the four palmately-placed segments. There is a distinct indication of the upper end of the leaf-stalk. In some of the leaflets the venation is feebly indicated, but in all of them there is an obvious median groove which becomes more distinct towards the point of attachment. This apparent midrib is not nearly so distinct in V. 2353, Pl. IX. Fig. 5, and, indeed, were the latter the only available specimen, one would describe the leaflets as without a median vein. The midrib seems to be best represented in those specimens where there is some carbonaceous material on the surface; it appears as a median depression widening towards the base. Cf. Sagenopteris rhotfolia, Presl, var. elongata, Braun., and S. rhovfolia, Presl, var. pusilla, Braun., as represented by Schenk in his “ Foss. Flor. Grenz.,” pl. xii. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2353. Pl. IX. Fig. 5. In this leaflet the venation is particularly clear; there is no distinct indication of a midrib. Cf. Velenovsky, Joc. ect. pl. i. figs. 1-5; also Zigno, Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. i. pl. xxi. fig. 1. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2300. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 23530. Large leaflets. Cf. Schenk,’ pl. xxxi. fig. 5, and Dunker,? pl. ix. fig. 5. V. 23534. These leaflets agree in shape and in the form of the venation with V. 2358 (Pl. [X. Fig. 5); there is a more distinct indication here of a median depression, owing, probably, to the fact that carbonaceous matter is present in this specimen. V. 2353c. Two leaflets; in the smaller spathulate one very good venation. V. 2353d. A small leaflet like the two lowest in Fig. 4, Pl. IX. (V. 2272). Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Paleontographica, vol. xix. 2 Wealdenbildung. 134 MICRODICTYON V. 2381. A triangular apical portion of a pointed leaflet. The apex seems to vary considerably in form; it may be either pointed or distinctly obtuse. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. ?V. 2735. Here are two small leaflets which should possibly be included in this species; on the same specimen is a piece of ?stem structure, with which one of the leaflets is in close contiguity, suggesting a pinnule attached to a rachis. There is, however, no clear evidence of such attachment, and I prefer to regard the juxtaposition as one of the many misleading accidents of fossilization. Midrib more distinct than in most specimens of S. Mantelli. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. Genus MICRODICTYON, Saporta. [Pal. Frang. 1873, Plantes Jurassiques, vol. i. p. 306.] This genus was founded by Saporta for the inclusion of certain Jurassic ferns which did not conform in all points to the existing genera Phlebopteris and Thaumatopteris, with which they closely corresponded in general habit. The chief characteristics of the genus are the reticulately disposed lateral veins between the stouter lateral branches, which are given off at right angles to the midrib, also the occurrence of a single row of sori on each side of the midrib. From Phlebopteris Saporta’s genus is distinguished by the network of fine veins in the large areole between the stronger lateral veins, and from Zhaumatopteris by the more regularly- placed and fewer sori. The genus is referred to the tribe Polypodiee. ‘‘Frons pinnata vel saltem frondis segmenta pinnatipartita, pinnis linearibus elongatis; nervi e costa primaria pinnularum orti sub angulo aperto emissi, dein arcuatim conjuncti, arcolas secus nervum medium seriatas efformantes, intus reticulum sorosque rotundos puncto medio solitarie affixos includentes, extus venulas pluries furcato-divisas inter seque varie anastomosatas marginem usque integerrimum emittentes.”’ ! 1 Saporta, Pal. Franc. vol. i. p. 306. MICRODICTYON 135 Microdictyon Dunkeri (Schenk). 1870. Pecopteris decipiens, Trautschold, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. iii p.' 29, pl. xix. fig. 6. 1871. Laccopteris Dunkeri, Schenk, Paleontographica, xix. p. 219, pl. xxix. figs. 3-5. 1874. Laccopteris Dunkeri, Schimper, Trait. pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 506. Piehavieen Deaton { Schenk, Palwontographica, xxi. p. 161. cree 53) della oq, thee, G10), Biemayon Bunkers) \. pi) erviii, Sesh lap 11d) ie 1878. Laccopteris Dunkeri, Hosius and yon der Marck, Paleontographica, Xxvi. p. 208, xliv. fig. 192 and 193. 1888. Laccopteris Dunkeri, Velenovsky, Abh. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. p. 12, pl. il. figs. 3-7. 1876. Type. Small pieces of leaves showing fertile segments. Originals in the Collections of Berlin and Gottingen. Schenk defines the species as: ‘‘folia . . . . ? segmenta pinnati- fida, lacinize e basi latiore lineares sinu lato rotundato remote integree patentissime obtuse basi 5-6 mm. lato, sori biseriales rotundi, sporangia receptaculo centrali affixa, nervi primarii validi, secundarii angulo acuto egredientes dichotomi, ramuli repetito- dichotomi.”’ In a later description of the same species Schenk expands this definition, and we may adopt his amplified diagnosis as affording an accurate description, so far as the imperfect material allows? :— Leaf-segments deeply pinnatifid, the lobes entire, at right angles to the rachis, linear, obtuse, approximate; midrib strong, secondary veins given off at a right angle, and forming large meshes which are occupied by a reticulum of smaller veins. Sori circular, in two rows, without indusia; sporangia eight to ten, vertical incomplete annulus; spores tetrahedral. The figure of Pecopteris decipiens, Traut., represents a small piece of a leaf-segment with the long straight divisions characteristic of Mierodictyon Dunkert (Schenk). Some of these show traces of the sori. There are no indications of any characters which would justify the retention of Trautschold’s species. The volume of the Nouv. ‘ Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscou in which Trautschold’s paper is published has the date 1876, but the paper wrapper of a reprint in my 1 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 219. 2 Ibid. vol. xxiii. p. 161. 1386 MICRODICTYON possession bears the date 1870, the title page being dated 1871; according to the reprint, therefore, we ought to regard Traut- schold’s species as having priority over Schenk’s. Considering the better material and much more complete diagnosis given by Schenk, I propose to retain his name, in spite of the possible priority of the Russian species. Schenk, in his first notice of Microdictyon Dunkeri, compares it to Laccopteris elegans, Presl, of Rheetic age; in his second paper it is transferred to Saporta’s genus, and much new information is added with regard to the fructification. He considers that the fragments are most probably part of a palmately-divided leaf, and agrees with Saporta that Microdictyon comes nearest to certain species of the recent genus Polypodium. The smaller form from Portugal, named by Heer Laccopteris pulchella,* is admitted by the author of the species to bear a close resemblance to LZ. Dunkeri, but it is separated on account of the difference in size of the ultimate segments, and for some other reasons, the force of which is not very clear. It is not improbable that we might be right in including Heer’s species in the list of synonyms, but, considering the imperfections of the type speci- men of L. pulchella, it is better, perhaps, to retain this additional specific name. From the Cretaceous plant beds of Bohemia Velenovsky describes some larger specimens than have been accessible to earlier writers ; they resemble in all points the smaller pieces figured by Schenk. The affinity of the plant is discussed, and the two genera Gleichenia and Cyathea* are chosen as the most likely living ferns with which the fossil form must be compared; this comparison is founded on the character of the sori, but Velenovsky’s specimens showed no trace of the individual sporangia. He does not mention Schenk’s figures and descriptions of well-preserved fertile segments, although the volume in which the Bohemian ferns are described bears the date 1888, twelve years later than the publication of Schenk’s memoir. In Andrae’s account‘ of the plants from the ‘Liassic’’ beds of Steierdorf there are several figures of Andriania baruthina, Fr. Braun, which are exactly similar in habit to Iverodictyon 1 Paleontographica, vol. xxiii. p. 162. * Sece. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 16, pl. xv. fig. 7. 3 Abh. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. 1888, p. 13. * Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. ii. Abth. iii, No. 4, p. 36, pl. vii. figs. 1-3. MICRODICTYON 137 Dunkeri (Schenk), but the venation, as shown in an enlarged pinnule, readily distinguishes this genus from the JLcrodictyon type. The specimen represented in fig. 1, pl. vil. of Andrae shows the basal ends of six pinne attached to the summit of a short rachis, suggesting a close connection, as regards habit, with Matonidium. Schenk’s figures of Zaccopteris Minsteri clearly demonstrate the form of frond characteristic of this class of ferns. The figures of Carolopteris aquensis, Deb. and Ett., show a type of venation which appears to conform exactly to that of Microdictyon, and the habit is equally similar. Possibly C. aquensis is identical with If Dunkeri; it is certainly very similar, and without doubt should be removed to Saporta’s genus. The second species, C. aspleniordes, shows a different venation. This genus is thus defined by Debey and Ettingshausen * :— ‘‘Frons pinnata (vy. bi- v. pluries-pinnata). Venze ramosissime, ad costas medianas in areolas polygonas confluentes, marginem versus simplices v. furcatee. Sori ad costam medianam biseriales, magni, orbiculares, globoso-depressi, areolis majoribus, venis reticulatis circumscriptis tectisque insidentes, indusiati, apice orbiculatim dehiscent.’ This definition is very similar to Saporta’s diagnosis of Micro- dictyon. Specimen without Registered Number. Rachis 5°5 cm. long. Ultimate segments show no details of venation; they are alternate, linear and of uniform breadth. On each side of the midrib occur distinct round projections, the regularly-placed sori characteristic of DMicrodictyon. In coarse quartzose sandstone. Cf. Schenk, Palzontographica, vol. xxiii. pl. xxvii. fig. 10, and pl. xxviii. fig. 11. V. 719. No details shown. Sori indicated by depressions in the rock surface. Heathfield. Purchased. V. 2214. Probably the same species, but venation hardly visible. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2199 and V. 2298. Fragments. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 529420. Fragment. Ecclesbourne. Presented by J. F. H. Peyton, Esq. 1 Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. 1859, vol. xvii. p. 206, pl. iil. 138 DICTYOPHYLLUM Genus DICTYOPHYLLUM, Lindley and Hutton. [Fossil Flora, vol. ii. 1833-35, pl. civ. p. 65.] This generic name was proposed by Lindley and Hutton for a plant originally described by Phillips from the Upper Sandstone and Shale of the Yorkshire Oolite; these authors describe the type specimen, Dictyophyllum rugosum, as a “ pinnatifid leaf belonging to some exogenous plant.”” The older name, Phyllites, having been ‘‘taken as the receptacle of all sorts of leaves,” the new one, Dictyophyllum, is proposed for ‘‘ doubtful Dicotyledonous leaves of common reticulated structure.””! Subsequent writers have retained the proposed name, although the discovery of sori on leaves with distinct Dictyophyllum characters has necessitated an entirely new definition of the genus. The few fragments in the Wealden Collection add nothing to our knowledge of this fern, for which we are chiefly indebted to Schenk; we may, therefore, adopt his definition of the genus? :— ‘Folia sterilia et fertilia conformia pedato-pinnata, lacinice pinnatifide. Nervi primarii radiantes, secundarii angulo recto egredientes excurrentes apice in rete soluti, tertiarii angulo recto egredientes maculas inequaliter hexagonales formantes pluri- seriales, costales majores, relique minores, omnes appendicibus anastomosantibus in maculas parvas partiti. Sori per totam paginam folii inferiorem sparsi, rotundi, sporangia pauca annulo multiarticulato instructa, spore tetraédrice globose.” Schimper,’ Saporta,‘ and others include this genus with other closely allied forms in the family Dictyopteridee. Saporta, in the first volume of his ‘ Plantes Jurassiques,” discusses the points of difference between Dictyophyllum, Thaumato- pteris, and Clathropteris; these differences depend chiefly on the form of the frond segments and the details of venation. In dealing with small pieces of a frond it is not always easy to decide which genus should be chosen. Clathropteris is, in most cases, readily distinguished by the rectangular nature of the venation, but in a 1 Foss. Flor. vol. ii. p. 66. 2 Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, p. 76. 3 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i, p. 617. 4 Pal. Fran¢. vol. i. p. 3265. DICTYOPHYLLUM 139 fragment of Clathropteris Minsteriana, Schenk, enlarged by Schenk from the lower portion of a large frond, the venation becomes very similar to the Dictyophyllum type. In Nathorst’s description of the genus! attention is drawn to the extreme variability of the species, and the consequent difficulty of determining specific and variety limits. Schenk, in Zittel’s ‘‘Handbuch der Paleontologie,’’*? includes Goppert’s genus Zhaumatopteris under the generic term Dictyo- phyllum. Bartholni,? in a recent contribution to the fossil flora of Bornholm, has referred certain specimens to /ausmannia, Dunk., which I am inclined to regard as Dictyophyllum fronds. This author considers that Dunker’s genus should be retained for certain forms of reticulately veined leaves; his figures of leaf fragments sufficiently demonstrate the great variation in the form of the lamina of such leaves. Bartholni’s figures of Hausmannia Forchhammeri, Barth.,£ agree closely with those of H. dichotoma as given by Dunker® and Schenk®; in the description of the Bornholm fossils no reference is made to this close resem- blance to Schenk’s North German specimens. So far as it is possible to base any definite opinion on such small specimens as those in the British Museum Collection, it is very probable that Hausmannia Forchhammeri, Barth., and Dietyophyllum Roemert, Schenk, may be the same plant. The nature of Dunker’s genus, Hausmannia,’ is far from clear; in the ‘‘Wealdenbildung” the type specimen of this genus is figured, but unfortunately there is no detailed description or drawing of the venation. In habit the plant may be compared to Dic- tyophyllum acutilobum,® Schenk, from which it is distinguished by the longer and narrower segments. Schenk makes use of this doubtful genus for some small fragments found in the North German Wealden rocks,’ but his figures are by no means con- 1 Foss. Fl. Schwedens, p. 13. Vol. io p. los. 5 Bot. Tids. Bot. For. Kjévenhavn, vol. xviii. Heft i, 1892, p. 26. 4 Loc. cit. pl. xi. figs. 4-6; pl. xii. figs. 1-3. 5 Wealdenbildung, pl. v. fig. 1. 6 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxix. figs. 8 and 9; pl. xxxi. fig. 3. 7 Wealdenbildung, p. 12. 8 Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, pl. xx. 9 Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 223, pl. xxix. figs. 8 and 9. 140 DICTYOPHYLLUM clusive as regards the claim of Dunker’s generic title to be retained. I expect that the discovery of more perfect examples of what Dunker designated Hausmannia may lead to the con- clusion that this genus represents a form of Dictyophyllum. A comparison of Schenk’s figures of Hausmannia dichotoma, Dunk., and Nathorst’s of Dictyophyllum Nilssoni, Brong.,! var. intermedium, in his ‘‘Flora of Sweden,” is very suggestive of the generic identity of the two species. Dictyophyllum Roemeri, Schenk. 1871. Dictyophyllum Roemeri, Schenk, Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 224, pl. xx. fie. 3: 1892. ? Hausmannia Forchhammeri, Bartholni, Bot. Tids. Bot. For. Kjévenhavn, vol. xviii. Heft i. p. 26, pl. xi. figs. 4 and 4a. Type. Small sterile portion of a frond. In the University of Wiirzburg Collection. Schenk defines this species as follows :— “Folia... ? laciniz margine crenate, crene integra, nervi primarii validi, secundarii angulo recto egredientes, rami et ramuli in rete areas irregulariter polygonas formantes conjuncti.’’ In the fragments from the Sussex Wealden the sori are fairly clearly shown. Habit of the complete frond unknown; the lamina traversed by strong palmately-disposed veins which probably constitute the central axes of the leaf segments. The secondary veins form a reticulate structure, and in the larger meshes there are smaller reticulate branches; the sori scattered on the lower surface of the leaf; in some of these the sporangia appear to have a fairly regular arrangement in groups of four or more round a common centre. Schenk was the first to record this genus of the Dictyopteridee from Wealden rocks; the present species repeats such characters as are more distinctly shown in the much more perfect and larger fronds found in Rhetic and Jurassic strata. So far as the nature of the species is indicated by the few specimens from German and English beds, it appears to agree with Dictyophyllum tPl.iv. fig: 8: DICTYOPHYLLUM 141 acutilobum,! Schenk, in its venation and the arrangement of the sori, A similar regular disposition of sporangia is shown in Heer’s Lower Cretaceous species from Greenland, D, Dicksoni,? Hr. Fie. 16 (V. 21774). Dictyophyllum Roemeri. Twice natural size. V. 21775. Fig. 16. A small piece of a frond showing portions of three chief veins and, between them, a reticulum of smaller veins. In the meshes of the finer veins there occur small depressions which probably represent sporangia; here and there these appear to have a fairly regular arrangement. Cf. Dietyophyllum Dicksoni, Heer, F1. foss. Arct. vol. i. pl. iii. figs. 9 and 94, 9¢ and 9d. In this specimen the finer reticulation is not nearly so apparent as in Schenk’s figure, but, in the absence of more satisfactory evidence, I prefer to adopt his specific name, although possibly more perfect material may show that the English specimens belong to a separate species. Cf. also some of the figures of Hausmannia Forchhammert, Barth., e.g. pl. xi. figs. 4 and 4a. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2177. A similar fragment to V. 21775. Traces of sporangial depressions in some of the meshes. Ey Fic. 17 (V. 2177a). Dietyophyllum Roemeri. Twice natural size. Ve 21 Wia) Bis. 17. Small piece of leaf showing the venation very clearly, as a carbonaceous reticulum. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll, 1 Fl. foss. Grenz. Keup. Lias, pl. xx. ? Flor. foss. Arct. vol. ili. pl. iii. fig. 9. 3 Bartholni, Joe. cit. 142 PHYLLOPTERIS V. 2353. Small piece with carbonaceous substance preserved ; shows an unevenly-lobed margin. In the venation areole occur oval or roundish projections, probably sori. Cf. Schenk’s figure of Hausmannia dichotoma, Dunk., also Nathorst’s enlarged drawing of Dictyophyllum Nilssoni, Brong., var. intermedium.’ Eccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2815. On one of these specimens is a broad vein from which secondary branches are given off at right angles, and the spaces between are traversed by a network of finer veins. Length of fragment 3°5 cm.; intervals between the large secondary branches 2mm. Cf. Hausmannia dichotoma,? Dunker, and Schenk’s figure of Dictyophyllum Roemeri,* Schenk. Ecclesbourne. ufford Coll. Genus PHYLLOPTERIS, Brongniart. [Tableau, 1849, p. 22.] Brongniart proposed this new genus for certain forms of leaves previously referred to Glossopteris and Teniopteris, but which differ from these two genera in the character of their venation. The leaflets included in this genus are considered by Brongniart to belong to pinnate or digitate fronds, more or less lanceolate or linear in shape, with well-marked midrib, and very oblique dichotomously branched veins which do not anastomose to form a reticulum. Glossopteris Phillipsii, Brong., is one of the plants included under Phyllopteris; it is pointed out that Phillips’ figure ‘ incorrectly represents the venation as reticulate, also that the plant described and figured by Lindley and Hutton as Glossopteris Phillipsir® is a true Sagenopteris. Zigno® and Saporta’ adopt Brongniart’s genus, and the latter 1 Foss. Fl. Schwedens, pl. iv. fig. 8. 2 Wealdenbildung, pl. v. fig. 1. 3 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxxi. fig. 3. 4 Geol. Yorks. 1875, pl. viii. fig. 8. 5 Foss. Flor. vol. i. pl. lxiii. § Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. i. p. 166. 7 Pal. Franc. vol. i. p. 448. PHYLLOPTERIS 143 notes the absence of anastomosing venation as a departure from the Glossopteris leaf, and the oblique course of the secondary veins as a means of distinguishing it from Zeniopteris. Saporta’s diagnosis differs but little from the earlier description by Brongniart :— ‘«Frondes vel pinne frondium plus minusve lanceolate, margine integerrime, nervo medio sursum attenuato instructe; nervis secundariis costa media egredientibus, oblique decurrentibus, curvatis, pluries furcato-ramosis nec inter se anastomosatis.”’ Phyllopteris acutifolia, sp. nov. Type. Imperfect leaflets. In the British Museum. PI. IX. Fig. 6. Leaflets linear- or ovate-lanceolate, tapering at the lower end into a short stalk; midrib very distinct in the lower half, but gradually becoming less conspicuous towards the apical portion; lateral veins given off obliquely, and frequently dichotomizing as they curve towards the entire margin of the leaflet. In the best specimen of this species shown in Pl. IX. Fig. 6, we have an imperfect example of a single leaflet, which in shape agrees fairly closely with Phyllopteris Phillipsii, Brong., from the Middle Sandstone and Shale of East Yorkshire. Phillips described this Yorkshire fossil as having anastomosing veins, but, as already noted, Brongniart does not admit such anastomosis and places the specimens in a genus characterized by the absence of reticulate veins." Nathorst has recorded certain leaflets from Sweden which may be compared, as regards shape and venation, with the present species, e.g. Zhinnfeldia rhomboidalis, Ett.,? Sagenopteris undulata, Nath., as represented in pl. xix. fig. 2 of the ‘‘ Floran vid Bjuf”’? and in pl. ii. fig. 8 of the ‘‘Floran vid Hoganas.’’* This latter species should be compared with S. angustifolia, Zig. Nathorst’s* fig. 2, pl. xix. and Zigno’s figs. in pl. xx. Flor. foss. Oolit. are 1 See remarks on Glossopteris Phillipsii by Bunbury, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol, vii. 1851, p. 184. 2 Sver. Geol. Undersokn. 4to. 1878. 3 Ibid. 1878. 4 Ibid. 1886. 144 PHYLLOPTERIS almost identical. A similar form of leaflet has been described by Dr. H. Woodward! from Mount Adams in South Australia, but the original specimen of the figure which he gives is an imperfectly preserved impression on sandstone, and shows no venation except an indication of a midrib; the clearly cut and numerous lateral lines of the woodcut are evidently the engraver’s vein-like shading. Compare also the fragments referred by Newberry to the genus Chiropteris from the Kootanie beds of Montana.? From such specimens as occur in the National Collection it is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to the real nature of the species. The name assigned to it is rather for purposes of convenient reference than intended to convey the idea of a well-defined specific type. V. 2816. Pl. IX. Fig. 6. A single leaflet with an apparently truncated apex, due no doubt to tearing. Veins fairly distinct as black curving lines on the brown impression of the lamina. No signs of reticulation noticed. Length 3 cm., somewhat ovate-lanceolate in form. On the same piece of rock is a fragment of what appears to be the short stalk of a leaflet. This specimen comes very near to Chiro- pteris spatulata, Newb.,? from the Kootanie group of Montana. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2344. Probably the same species, in spite of certain differences in size and shape. The venation is of the same Phyllopteris type; in this specimen the apical part is preserved and shows the lanceolate termination of the leaflet. Cf Nathorst, pl. xix. fig. 2, Sagenopteris undulata, Nath., Floran vid Bjuf, Haft ii. 1886. Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Geol. Mag. dec. iii. vol. ii. 1885, p. 289. 2 Amer. Journ. vol. xli. 1891, pp. 198-199. 3 Ibid. pl. xiv. figs. 1 and 2. NATHORSTIA. 145 Genus NATHORSTIA, gen. nov. I propose to institute a new provisional genus of ferns for the reception of certain specimens from the English Wealden, which do not conform to the definitions of any known fossil genera; and, as some slight testimony to the palwobotanical labours of Dr. Nathorst, I have ventured to name the plants after him. It will be seen that the specimens included under this genus are imperfectly preserved frond fragments, and of such a kind that it is impossible to arrive at any very satisfactory conclusion as to their real nature. Two of the pieces are shown in Pl. VII. Fig. 5 and Pl. IX. Fig. 2; these at first sight suggest portions of distinct species, and at first I regarded them as such. On more careful examination, however, and after comparison with other specimens, the differences become less pronounced and seem to be rather apparent than real. In the absence of venation and fructification it is useless to attempt a formal diagnosis of the genus; the characters will be most conveniently indicated in the definition of the single species. Nathorstia valdensis, gen. et sp. nov. 1871. ? Pecopteris Geinitzii, Schenk (in part), Paleontographica, vol. xix. p. 215, pl. xxix. figs. 2 and 2a. Type. Portions of sterile fronds. British Museum. Pl. VII. Fig. 5.; Pl. IX. Figs. 2 and 2a. Frond bipinnate (?), of slender habit, rachis thin but well marked; pinne alternate or subopposite, long and of uniform breadth; the small pinnules attached by the whole of the base, margin entire or very slightly lobed, subdeltoid in shape, apex obtuse; some of the pinnules show faint traces of a midrib, but no lateral veins. Fructification unknown. The specimen figured by Schenk from the neighbourhood of Hannover as Pecopteris Geinitzii, Dunk., can hardly be referred to that species as figured by Dunker.'| On the whole it seems 1 Wealdenbildung, pl. vii. fig. 3. 146 NATHORSTIA. probable that Schenk’s specimen may be identical with the Sussex examples referred to Wathorstia. It not infrequently happens that the same specific and generic names have been used for Palseozoic and Mesozoic ferns, which have no resemblance to one another ; and this confusion no doubt arises from the choice of terms for new species from one geological horizon, without sufficiently considering the names already in use for plants of a different age. An instance of this is afforded by Pecopteris Geinitzi2, Dunk.; this name was instituted by Dunker' in 1846 for some specimens of Wealden fern fronds from Northern Germany; in 1849 Gutbier? makes use of the same name, apparently without knowledge of its previous existence, for some Permian specimens from Saxony. Gutbier’s species is retained in Sterzel’s recent Monograph on ‘Die Flora des Rothliegenden im plauenschen Grunde bei Dresden,” * but, in view of the priority of Dunker’s application of the specific name, some new term should be sub- stituted in the case of Gutbier’s Permian plant. Schimper* includes Gutbier’s species under Pecopteris (Cyath.) pinnatifida (Gutb.), Gem. Some of the pinnules in the pinne figured by Schenk appear to show venation, but there is not sufficient evidence in favour of the identity of his specimen with those from the English Wealden to warrant our acceptance of the venation characters as characteristic of Wathorstia valdensis. If specimens are found which are clearly of the same species as those represented in Pl. VII. Fig. 5 and Pl. IX. Fig. 2, and show distinct venation of a type characteristic of some existing provisional genus, then the name athorstia must be abandoned. There is a certain resemblance between the present species and Alethopteris cycadina, Schenk, as figured in pl. xxvi. fig. 6, Paleontographica, vol. xxiii; but the agreement is very slight, and the earlier figure of the same species by Schenk® represents an entirely different plant to Nathorstia valdensis. 1 Wealdenbildung, p. 6. 2 Die Verstein. Roth. Sachsen. 1849, p. 16, pl. ii. fig. 10; pl. ix. figs. 1-3; pl. xi. figs. 5-6. 3 Abh. math.-phys. Cl. k. Sachs. Ges. Wiss. vol. xix. 18938. 4 Trait. pal. vég. vol. i. p. 507. 5 Paleontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxxi. fig. 2. NATHORSTIA. 147 V. 2376. Pl. IX. Figs. 2 and 2a. The specimen suggests either a delicate and graceful type of frond or large pinna, or a young condition of a more robust form. No venation is seen, except a slight trace of a midrib in some of the pinnules, eg. Fig.2a. Some of the smaller specimens referred to Oladophlebis Dunkeri (Schenk) have a certain resemblance to the upper pinne of this species, but the likeness is probably only superficial. The single pinna at * in Fig. 2, Pl. IX. agrees very closely with the pinne of Pl. VII. Fig. 5. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2809. Pl. VII. Fig. 5. This specimen, 4 cm. in length, differs from V. 2876 (Pl. IX. Fig. 2) chiefly in the closer arrangement and stiffer habit of the pinne, and in the smaller size of the pinnules. The lowest pinna on the right-hand side of Fig. 5 agrees with those on the left side of the rachis and close to the apex of Pl. IX. Fig. 2. The matrix is different in the two figured specimens, and this fact alone is often sufficient to account for apparent differences in form. Several of the pinnules have lobed margins like those of Pl. IX. Fig. 2a, and here and there a midrib is indicated. I was at first inclined to refer this fragment to Géppert’s genus Gleichenites,: which includes several species from Mesozoic plant- bearing beds; but the small and incomplete nature of the material would hardly justify the choice of such a generic term in the absence of any definite evidence of a Gleichenia habit or fructi- fication. Cf. Gleichenia micromera, Heer,” also Pecopteris (Gletchenites) gleichenoides, O. and M.,* Trautschold’s figures of what he calls Asplenites Klinensis,t and Gleichenia multinervosa,’ Vel. Eccles- bourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2173 and V. 2219. Fragments of apical pinne: cf. Pl. IX. Fig. 2 (V. 2376), and the tips of the pinne of V. 2809, Pl. VII. Fig. 5. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 1 Foss. Farrnkrt. 1836, p. 181. 2 Flor. foss. Arct. vol. ii. pl. x. 3 Pal. Ind. pt. i. 1863, vol. i. 1880, pl. xxv. 4 Nouv. Mém. Soe. Nat. Moscou, vol. xiii. 1876, pl. xx. figs. 2 and 4. 5 Abh. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. vii. Folg. vol. ii. 1888, pl. iii. figs. 1 and 2. 148 TEMPSKYA. V. 2299. Small fragment of pinna. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2345 and V. 23452. Small piece of rachis with a few pinne ; somewhat intermediate in form between Pl. IX. Fig. 2 and Pl. VII. Fig. 5. Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll. V. 2375. [Trait. pal. vég.] Vol. iii. 1874 Schlotheim, E. F. von. Nachtrige zur Petrefactenkunde. Gotha, 1822. [ Petrefactenkunde. | Schmalhausen, J. Beitriige zur Jura-flora Russlands. [J/ém. Ac. Imp. St. Pétersburg, sér. vii. vol. xxvii. No. 4, 1879.] LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. 171 Schulze, £. Ueber die Flora der subhercynischen Kreide. Inaugural Dissertation. Halle, 1888. [Flor. subhercyn. Kreid.] Solms-Laubach, Graf zu. Fossil Botany. English translation. Oxford, 1891. Sprengel, A. Commentatio de Psarolithis. Halle, 1828. Squinabol, S. Contribuzioni alla Flora fossile dei Terreni Terziarii della Liguria. Vol. i. Characee, etc. Genove, 1889 ; vol. ii. Alghe, Genove, 1891. [Contrib. Fl. foss. Liguria.] Staub, M. Dicksonia punctata, Stbg. sp., in der fossilen Flora Ungarns. [Példt. Kézl. 1890, p. 227.] Stenzel, K. G. (1) Ueber Farn Wurzeln aus dem Rothenliegenden. [Nova Acta Ae. Cos. Leop.-Car, vol. xxvi. 1858, p. 225.] Stenzel, K. G. (2) Rhizodendron Oppoliense, Gipp. [Jahres.-Ber. Schles. Ges. Kultur, 1886.] Stenzel, G. (3) Die Gattung Tubicaulis Cott.: Bib. bot. Haenlein und Uhlworm, Heft xii. Cassel, 1889. Sternberg, C. Graf von. Versuch einer geognostisch-botanischen Dar- stellung der Flora der Vorwelt. Leipzig. [Flor. Vorwelt.] Fasc. i. pp. 1-24, pl. i—xiii. 1820. » li. pp. 1-33, pl. xiv.xxvi. 1821. »» il. pp. 1-39, pl. xxvii.-xxxix. 1823. » lv. pp. 1-42, pl. xl.lix. and A-E. 1825. » V. and vi. pp. 1-48, pl. i-xxvi. 1833. sy Vil. pp. 1-200, pl. xxvii.-lxvi. pl. A-B. 1838. vii. pp. 1-71. 1838. Sterzel, J. T. bas Flora der Rothliegenden im plauenschen Grunde bei Dresden. [Abh. math.-phys. Cl. k. Sachs. Ges. Wiss. vol. xix. 1893.] Stiehler, A. W. (1) [Ber. nat. Ver. Harz, 1853-54, p. 14.] Stiehler, A. W. (2) Ueber fossile Pflanzen aus der Kreideformation von Quedlinburg. [Zeztsch. deutsch. geol. Ges. vol. vi. 1854, p. 659.] Stiehler, A. W. (8) Beitraége zur Kenntniss der Vorweltlichen Flora des Kreidegebirges im Harze. [Paleontographica, vol. v. 1855-58, p. 7.] Stokes and Webb. Descriptions of some Fossil Vegetables of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex. (The authors’ names do not appear in the title of this paper.) [7rans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. i. 1824, p. 421.] Struckmann, C. (1) Die Wealden-Bildungen der Umgegend von Han- nover. Hannover, 1880. [Weald. Hannover. ] Struckmann, C. (2) Die Grenzschichten Zwischen Hilsthon und Wealden bei Barsinghausen am Deister. [Jahrb. k. preuss. Geol. Landesanst. 1889, p. 54.] 172 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. Stur, D. (1) Die Lunzer (Lettenkohlen —) Flora in den “ Older Meso- zoic beds of the Coal-field at Eastern Virginia.” [Verh. k.-k. geol. Reichs. No. 10, 1888, p. i.] Stur, D, (2) Beitriige zur Kenntniss der Flora der Vorwelt. Vol. ii. Die Carbon-flora der Schatzlarer Schichten. Abth.i. [Abz. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. xi, Abth. i. 1885.] Tate, R. On some Secondary Fossils from South Africa. [Quwart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. 1867, p. 139. ] Tenison- Woods, J. EK. On the Fossil Flora of the Coal Deposits of Australia. [Proc. Linn. Soc, N.S. Wales, vol. viii. pt. i. 1883.] Topley, W. (1) The Geology of the Weald. Mem. Geol. Surv. London, 1875. [Weald.] Topley, W. (2) See Jukes-Browne, A. J. Trautschold, T. (1) Recherches géologiques aux environs de Moscou. [Bull. Soc. Imp, Nat. Mose. vol. xxxi. pt. iv. 1858, p. 546.] Trautschold, T. (2) Ueber der Kreide-Ablagerungen im Gouverne- ment Moskau. [Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Mose. vol. xxxiv. pt. iv. 1861, p. 432.] Trautschold, T. (3) Der Klin’sche Sandstein. Moscou, 1870. [Wowv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. xiii. 1876, p. 191.] Ulrich, H. O. Contributions to American Paleontology. [Geol. Mag. N.S. dec. 3, vol. iii. 1886, p. 374.] Unger, F. (1) Synopsis Plantarum fossilium. Lipsex, 1845. [Syn. plant. foss. | Unger, F. (2) Genera et species plantarum fossilium. Vindobone, 1850. [Gen. spec. plant. foss.] Unger, F. (8) Reise der Oesterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde. Geologischer Theil, vol. i. Abth. ii. p.1. Wein, 1864. [Reise Fregatte Novara. ] Vaillant. (Hist. Ac. R. Sci. 1719, p. 17. Paris, 1721.] Velenovsky, J. (1) Die Gymnospermen der béhmischen Kreideforma- tion. Prag, 1885. [Gym. béhm. Kreid.] "elenovsky, J. (2) Die Farne der béhmischen Kreideformation. [AbA. k. bohm Ges. Wiss. vii. Folg. vol. ii. 1888.] Ward, L. F. (1) The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Plants. [U.S. Geol. Surv. Ann. Rep. No. 8, 1887-88.] Ward, L. F. (2) Evidence of the Fossil Plants as to the age of the Potomac formation, [Am. Journ. Sct. ser. iii. vol. xxxvi. ' 1888, p. 119.] Weichsel, —. [Ber. Nat. Ver. Harz, 1853-54, p. 24.] Wethered, E. On the Occurrence of Calcisphere, Williamson, in the Carboniferous Limestone of Gloucestershire. [Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, vol. xliv, Proc. 1888, p. 91.] LIST OF WORKS QUOTED. ive White, C. A. Correlation papers. Cretaceous. [Buwll. U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 82, 1891.] White, D. A new Teeniopteroid Fern and its allies. [Bull. Geol. Soe. America, vol. iv. 1893, p. 119.] Williamson, W. C. On the organization of the Fossil Plants of the Coal-Measures. Pt. x. [Phil. Trans. 1880, p. 493.] Woodward, H. Notes on some Mesozoic Plant Remains from South Australia. [Geol. Mag. vol. ii. 1885, p. 289.] Woodward, H. B. The Geology of England and Wales. Edit. ii. London, 1887. Yokoyama, M. (1) On the Jurassic Plants of Kaga, Hida and Echizen. [ Bull. Geol. Soc. Japan, pt. B, vol. i. No. 1, 1886.] Yokoyama, M. (2) Jurassic Plants from Kaga, Hida and Echizen. [Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. ii. 1890.] Zeiller, R. (1) Bassin houiller de Valennciennes. Paris, 1888. Zeiller, R. (2) Annuaire Géologique. Vol. viii. 1892-93, p. 893. [Ann. Géol.| Zeiller, R. (3) See Renault. Zigno, A. de. Flora fossilis formationis Oolithice. Vol. i. Padova, 1856. [Flor. foss. Oolit.] Zittel, K. A. Handbuch der Paleeontologie. Vol. i. Schimper, W. P. and Schenk, A. Munich and Leipzig, 1890. [Handbuch.] ‘ = re lates a 14 == 2 ee re eee OY poe BY i i ’ a 7 ; ‘ La it; ; : ney ° ee INDEX OF GENERA, SPECIES, ETC.: MENTIONED IN THE DESCRIPTIVE PART OF THE CATALOGUE. [Synonyms are printed in étalics.] Acrostichopteris, 60, 61. Botrychium, 22. densifolia, 62. Bryophyta, 15-19. longipennis, 60, 62. Ruffordi, 61, 62, 84. Acrostichum, 36, 60, 61. Calamites arenaceus, minor, 25. peltatum, 61. Calcisphera, 11. Adiantites Mantelli, 130. Lemoni, 11. Alethopteris, 92. Carolopteris aquensis, 187. Albertsii, 91, 92, 94. asplenioides, 137. Browniana, 99, 100. Carpolithus, 28, 29. cycadina, 146. cordatus, 27. elegans, 63, 64. Huttoni, 27. Ettingshausei, 116. Lindleyanus, 27, 29. Gopperti, 63. Mantelli, 27, 28. Huttoni, 98. sertum, 28, 33, 34. recentior, 115, 117. Catenella, 7, 8. Reichiana, 99. Caulerpa, 1, 2, 5. Résserti, 92. arcuata, 6. Whitbyensis, 88, 92, 95. Carruthersii, 2. Algacites, 2, 3. Caulerpites, 1, 2. Alge, 1-8. Caulopteris, 71. Algites, 2-4. punctata, 72. catenelloides, 6, 7. Chara, 9-12. Valdensis, 4-8. Bleicheri, 12. Andriania Baruthina, 136. foetida, 14. Aneimidium Klipsteinii, 131. Jaccardi, 12, 13. Mantelli, 130. Knowltoni, 12-14. Aneimites, 75. medicaginula, 14. Anemia, 39, 75, 81, 83. Meriani, 14. adiantifolia, 76-81. Millardi, 12. Angiopteridium, 124. Stantoni, 14. Anomopteris, 115, 117. Characee, 9-14. Ludoviee, 115. Charophyta, 9-14. Aspidium, 36, 102 Cheilanthites Gopperti, 76. Dunkeri, 101, 102. Mantelli, 41. Asplenites Klinensis, 115, 118, 147. Chiropteris, 144. paleopteris, 107, 108, 112. spatulata, 144. Rosserti, 87, 89, 95, 96. Chondria, 5. Asplenium, 36, 80, 88, 89, 93, 95, | Chondrides, 5. 108. dolichophyllus, 4. argutulum, 96. Chondrites, 1, 5. Dicksonianum, Chondrus, 1, 4, 8. foeniculaceum, 80. crispus, 4, 7. fragrans, 7, 8, 80. Cladophlebis, 87, 95, 101, 104, 124. Whitbyensis, 96. acuta, 93, 96. 176 ALPHABETICAL INDEX. Cladophlebis Albertsii, 91-98, 113. Browniana, 66, 99, 100. deuticulata, 98. Dunkeri, 99, 100-104, 147, 159. falcata, 98, 96. Haiburnensis, 88. inclinata, 94. ligata, 88. lobifolia, 88. longipennis, 89-91. nebbensis, 116, 119. Rosserti, 94, 95. tenuis, 88. Whitbyensis, 88, 94-96. Clathropteris, 138. Munsteriana, 139. Confervites fissus, 6, 41. setaceus, 6. Conifere, 21. Cryptogramme, 47, 48. erispa, 51. Cyathea, 136. Cyatheacee, 62-75. Cycadinocarpus cordatus, 27. Huttoni, 27. Lindleyanus, 27. Mantelli, 27. Cycadites Althausii, 63. Cyclopteris, 75. Acadica, 76. Mantelli, 130. Danzites, 123. Danzeopsis, 124. Davallia, 51. gibberosa, 51. Dichymosaurus, 89. Dicksonia, 36, 47, 56, 69, 71. antarctica, 69, 74, 164-156. elongata, 40, 55, 56. punctata, 72. Dictyophyllum, 138-140. acutilobum, 139-141. Dicksoni, 141. Nilssoni, 140, 142. Roemeri, 1389, 140-142. rugosum, 138. Dictyota, 4. Endogenites, 148. erosa, 148, 150, 151, 1652. Equisetacex, 22-35. Kquisetinze, 22-36. Equisetites, 22-24. arcticum, 31. arenaceum, 31. Burchardti, 27-34. Equisetites Hemingwayi, 23. Lusitanicum, 25. Lyelli, 24-27. Minsteri, 26, 31. Parlatorii, 31. Phillipsii, 25, 26. Ushimarense, 29. Yokoyame, 28, 33-39. Kquisetum, 20, 22, 23, 30. arvense, 30, 31. maximum, 30. palustre, 30. sylvaticum, 30. Telmateia, 30. tuberosum, 31, Virginicum, 29. Fasciculites varians, 154. Filicites, 104. punctatus, 72. Floridez, 5. Fontinalis, 16. Fucoides, 3. erectus, 5, 17, 18. Fucus, 3. Furcellaria, 5. Gleichenia, 136, 147. micromera, 147. multinervosa, 147. Nordenskiéldi, 100. Zippei, 100. Gleicheniace, 90. Gleichenites, 147. Glossopteris, 142, 1438. Phillipsi, 142. Glyptostrobus gracillimus, 21. Gymnogramme, 40. Gymnostomum ferrugineum, 17. Gyrogonites, 9. Gyrophyllites Theobaldi, 5. Halyserites gracilis, 19. Hausmannia, 140. dichotoma, 140, 142. Forchhammeri, 139-141. Helminthostachys, 22. Hepatice, 17-19, 21. Hymenophyllum Tunbridgense, 117. Hymenopteris psilotoides, 41, 43. Hypnee, 15. Isoetes, 22. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. qe Jeanpaulia nervosa, 78. Jungermannia, 17. Jungermannites, 17, 21. Juniperus macilenta, 21. Klukia, 39, 75. Laccopteris Dunkeri, 135, 136. elegans, 136. Gopperti, 63. Miunsteri, 137. pulchella, 136. Lepidodendron, 156. punctatum, 68, 70. Lonchopteris, 113, 114, 117, 119. Bricii, 119. Mantelli, 114-119. recentior, 115, 118. Virginiensis, 119. Lycopodites, 21. Maakii, 16. uncinatus, 15. Lycopodium phlegmaria, 20. Marattiacex, 122, 153. Marattiopsis, 124. Marchantia, 17, 18. chenopoda, 18. oolithicus, 17. Marchantites, 18. Zeilleri, 18, 19. Marsilea, 61, 129, 130. Matonia, 62, 63. pectinata, 63, 65. sarmentosa, 63. Matonidium, 62, 63, 66, 137. Gopperti, 63-67. Microdictyon, 134, 136, 137. Dunkeri, 65, 135-137. Microlepis Mantelli, 42. Mellerina, 11. Mohria, 39. Musci, 15. Muscinex, 15-19. Muscites, 16. cretaceus, 16. falcifolius, 16. imbricatus, 16. | polytrichaceus, 15. Sternbergianus, 16. Najadita, 16. Nathorstia, 145. Valdensis, 145-148. Neuropterides, 87. Neuropteris, 35, 87, 91, 128. Alberisii, 91-98. Nilssonia, 122. orientalis, 123. Nitella, 10. Nitophyllum, 4. Bonnemaisoni, 4. Oleandra, 122, 123, 125. neriiformis, 125. Oleandridium, 122-124. Beyrichii, 125. Eurychoron, 129. Onoclea struthiopteris, 95. Onychiopsis, 40, 41, 47, 48, 51. capsulifera, 49. elongata, 41, 47-49, 52, 55-60, 106. Mantelli, 6, 39, 41-54, 56, 59, 97, 108, 112, 113. Onychium, 40, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53. Japonicum, 51. Osmundacez, 95. Pachypteris gracilis, 107, 108. Palmacites varians, 153, 154. Pecopteris, 3, 35, 87-89, 117. Althausii, 63, 66. Auerbachiana, 116. Browniana, 99-102. cespitosa, 64. Conybeari, 63, 64. decipiens, 135. dentata, 94. Dunkeri, 100-108. exiliforme, 101, 102. exilis, 39, 75, 101, 102. explanata, 63, 69. Geinitzii, 89, 145-146. Geyleriana, 101-103, 116, 119, 120. gleichenoides, 147. Murchisoniana, 115, 117. nebbensis, 94. nigrescens, 118. obtusifolia, 102. pachycarpa, 665. pinnatifida, 146. polydactyla, 63, 64. polymorpha, 100, 101. Reichiana, 99. reticulata, 114, 116. tenwis, 98. Ungeri, 100. Whitbyensis, 87, 89, 91-93. Zippei, 100. 178 Phlebopteris, 134. Dunkeri, 136. Phyllites, 138. Phyllopteris, 124. acutifolia, 143, 144. Phillipsii, 143. Phyllotheca, 20, 27. equisetiformis, 20. Schtschurarosku, 20. Physagenia Parlatorii, 31. Polypodiacewe, 40-62. Polypodites Mantelli, 114, 115. Polypodium, 36, 60, 136. Polytrichum, 15. Porella, 21. Porosus marginatus, 162. Protopteris, 68, 69, 73, 150, 101, 154-1658. confluens, 157. Cottai, 73, 74, 157. Cotteana, 71, 73. Debeyi, 72. erosa, 160. fibrosa, 73. microrhiza, 149, 157. punctata, 70, 72, 73, 149, 154. Sternbergii, 71-73, 1538, 164. Witteana, 69-74, 16d. Pteridophyta, 22-159. Pteris, 36, 95, 118. Albertini, 92. Albertsii, 91, 92, 94. frigida, 93. reticulata, 116. Pterophyllum filicum, 116. Murchisonianum, 116. Rachiopteris, 3, 149. Reboulia hemispheerica, 6. Restiacese, 29. Rhipodopteris, 61. Rhizodendron Oppoliense, 73, 158. Rhizogonium, 16. Rhodymenia, 4. Ruffordia, 75, 76. Gopperti, 39, 44, 45, 75-86, 106. Saccammina Eriana, 11. Sagenopteris, 129, 130, 182, 142. angustifolia, 143, Mantelli, 180-134. Nathorsti, 132. Neocomiensis, 132. rhoifolia, 181-133. Stoliczana, 130. undulata, 148, 144. Sargassites Partschii, 6. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. Schizacee, 75-86. Scleropteris dissecta, 103. Pomelii, 110, 120. Sedgwickia yuccoides, 150. Sigillaria punctata, 72. Speirocarpus Haberfelneri, 119. Spheerococcides, 5. Spheerococcites, 5. chondriwformis, 6. Sphenolepis Kurriana, 42, 44. Sphenopteris, 3, 34, 36, 47, 51, 75, 88, 90, 104-113. adiantifrons, 76. acrodentata, 79, 86. antipodum, 48. Auerbachi, 77, 79. Bunburyanus, 110. Cordai, 56, 109. Delgadoi, 107, 112. elongata, 51. Fittoni, 97, 107-113. flabellifolium, var. erecta, 91, 94. Fontainei, 19, 106. fragilis, 110. Gomesiana, 56, 112. Gipperti, 39, (45, 55, 56, 60, 74, 76-78, 84, 86. gracilis, 107, 108. Hartlebeni, 76-78. Heeninghausii, var. formis, 111. Jugleri, 44, 76-78. longifolia, 76-78. Mantelli, 39, 41-48, 46, 48, 51, 56, 58, 108. Phillipsii, 76-78, 86. Pichleri, 109, 112. plurinervia, 56, 110, 112. Roemeri, 41, 42, 44. Sillimani, 41-44, 64. Steenstrupi, 79. tenera, 41, 44, 108. Valdensis, 42, 45, 48, 77, 78. Larischi- Tenidium Lusitanicum, 6. Teeniopteris, 122-129, 142, 143. Beyrichii, 123, 125-128. Dawsoni, 123-129. Forbesii, 124. obtusa, 127. spatulata, 126. stenoneura, 126. superba, 127. tenuinervis, 126. vittata, 122. Zebingiana, 128. Tempskya, 148-150, 156, 157. ceretacea, 153. ALPHABETICAL INDEX. Tempskya macrocaulis, 153. microrhiza, 153, 158. pulchra, 149, 153, 154, 158. Schimperi, 40, 149, 150-159. Thallophyta, 1-8. Thaumatopteris, 134, 138, 139. Thinnfeldia, 132. Lesquereuxiana, 132. rhomboidalis, 143. variabilis, 1380, 132. Thyrsopteris, 36, 40, 45-47, 55-57, 93. alata, 57, 58. angustifolia, 58. brevipennis, 79. capsulifera, 47, 59. crenata, 58. densifolia, 58. elliptica, 58. elongata, 40, 55. heterophylla, 58. ineequipinnata, 58, 110. insignis, 46. Kagensis, 79. 179 Thyrsopteris Meekiana, 57, 58, 60. microphylla, 52, 58. pinnatifida, 58. rarineryis, 46, 55, 57. Virginica, 57. Trichomanites Gépperti, 78. laxum, 42, 46. spinifolium, 42, 45. Vittaria, 124. Walchia, 29. Weichselia, 113, 114, 117, 119, 121. erratica, 116, 118. LIudovice, 115, 116, 118. Mantelli, 113-121 Widdringtonites Reichii, 21. _ Zonaria, 4. Zygopteris scandens, 150. PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS, HERTFORD. mt Tie. : ; : : : ) ie » ait ; v % ’ ¥ ,0i8i ; TS) es NY eee ok did Winds oe. es 715) Pecan swe F fe ce Jc ae ne 7 SER 4 . @ TM gate Tita ; Oath i+ ce st Pm. etek Haire a IED, ety. j Healt! * 4s i a - P : - } : a - ; « ' ; ~ B i? as : ‘i aer t er. Ht eo me! ale og ae, See a ‘7 _ - ; , ‘ : i “ > , . BS 4 ; 2 a 7 e , Tan 7 ‘p 7 : = - J all a ao + ‘ nr? - 7 : ~ EXPLANATION OF PLATES. All the figured specimens are preserved in the British Museum, their registered numbers being quoted in square brackets. The figures are drawn natural size, except in one or two cases where the enlargement is stated. With the exception of Pl. I. Figs. 1 and 2, Pl. X. Fig. 3, and Pl. XI., all the specimens are from the Rufford Collection. Fie. Fic. Fic. Fic. Fia. Fic. IG: Fia. Fic. PLATE I. 1. Algites valdensis, gen. et sp. nov. Carbonaceous impression of thallus. Page 6. Algites catenelloides, gen. et sp. nov. The small branched impressions associated with the previous species. P. 7. [V. 2857. ] 2. Algites valdensis, gen. et sp. nov. P. 6. Algites catenelloides, gen. et sp. nov. At a@ the elliptical fein of the cells is shown. P. 7. [V. 2857. ] 3. Marchantites Zeilleri, sp. nov. The branched vegetative body. Poo: [V. 2330. ] 4, Equisetites Lyelli, Mant. Stem showing leaf-sheaths and the base of a lateral branch. P. 25. [V. 59.] 5. Equisetites Burchardti, Dunk. Tubers and root attached to a node. The left-hand tuber shows two teeth at the apex. P. 32. [V. 2367. ] 6. Equisetites Burchardti, Dunk. Three long and slender divisions of a leaf-sheath shown in the left-hand fragment. P. 32. [V. 2367. ] 7. Specimen A (Plante incerte sedis). P. 19. i 2370. | 8. Specimen B (Plante incerte sedis). P. 20. 9. Small piece of a branch of Fig. 8 enlarged 10 times. rv. 2328. | B.M.WEALDEN PLANTS. Plate I. ( ELC & GM Weodward del .ct Lith West, Nevanan in, Wealden, Al See, Marchantites, Equisetites, ete. PLATE II. Fic. 1. Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Frond showing habit well, but details not very distinct. Page 48. [V. 2168. ] Fic. 2. Onychiopsis elongata (Geyler). Portions of pinne. P. 59. [V. 2731.] Plate IL. iN PLANTS. BM WEALDE op. est Newman : EC&G.M Woodward del.et hth. Se 10p $i Onych 1 ee ee ieee ere ’ a { et ¥ a yee "5 . « : Fic. Fic. Fia. Fig. Fig. anes PLATE III. . Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Smaller form of frond. Page 48. [V. 2151a. ] . Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Fragments of fertile pinne. P. 49, [V. 2151.] . Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Terminal portion of a fertile pinna. P. 49, [V. 2159. ] . Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). Portions of three fertile axes. P. 49. [V. 1069.] . Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.). Part of a sterile frond. P. 82. [V. 2731.] . Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). Fragment showing a sterile upper portion, and two basal fertile pinne. P. 83. [V. 2295. ] Plate IIL. N PLANTS sD AT, “ B.M.WE Newman amp. est 4 aa) q og 5 as] ° S > a G G E.c& ele = ‘ ord > dee = VY 1 Onychiops Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). PLATE IV. Finely divided form of frond. From a photograph by Mr. Gepp. Page 81. [V. 2157.] B. M. WEALDEN Gepp phot. ad nat. PLANTS. Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk. ). IPM WW, FIG. Fia. Fia. Fie. Fia. PLATE V. . Ruffordia Géppert: (Dunk.). Single pinna. Page 82. [V. 2166. ] . Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.). Pieces of pinnew. P. 82. [V. 2155a.] . Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.). A. Single ?pinna. B. Portions of two pinne with ultimate segments broader than in the preceding figures. P. 82. [V. 2156. ] . Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). Part of a frond with broader segments. P. 82. [V. 2243. ] . Ruffordia Gipperti (Dunk.). Part of a fertile pinna. P. 83. [V. 2160.] : 5, 2 f oO ‘: w : 7m ; Ay : ® = 0 . 5 qd 4 Z io} : : fe 2 5 fy a > a ja} Seward. Ruffordia, PLATE VI. Fie. 1. Ruffordia Gopperti (Dunk.), var. latifolia. Piece of a frond with pinnules and venation very clearly preserved. Page 85. Fic. la. A piece of a pinna enlarged to show the venation. P. 85. [V. 2333. ] Fic. 2. Sphenopteris Fittoni, sp. nov. Two specimens of fronds. P. 107. [V. 2242. ] Fic. 3. Acrostichopteris Ruffordi, sp. nov. Single pinna. P. 61. [V. 23827a.] B.M.WEALDEN PLANTS E.C &GM Woodward del. et Lith. Ruffordia, Sphenopteris, & Acrostichopteris. West, Newman amp. Fic. ag. Fia. Fia. Fic. PLATE VII. 1. Sphenopteris Fitton’, sp. nov. Part of a frond with more divided pinnules than in Pl. VI. Fig. 2. Page 110. [V. 2327.] 2. Sphenopteris Fontainei, sp. nov. Portion of pinna or small frond. P. 106. [V. 2155. ] 3. Cladophlebis Dunkeri (Schimp.). Frond fragments showing passage from bipinnate to tripinnate form. P. 103. [V. 2377.] 4. Cladophlebis Browniana (Dunker). Piece of a_bipinnate frond. P. 100. [V. 2198. | 5. Nathorstia valdensis, gen. et sp. noy. Part of a bipinnate ?frond. P. 147. [V. 2809. ] BMWEALDEN PLANTS. Plate VIL. E.Ca&GM Woodward del.et lth. West,Newmanimp. Sphenopteris, Cladophlebis, & Nathorstia. PLATE VIII. Cladophlebis Albertsii (Dunk.). Large specimen of frond ; two-thirds natural size. From a photograph by Mr. Gepp. Page 96. [V. 2794.] B.M. WEALDEN PLANTS. PWATE Valle A. Gepp phot. ad nat. Cladophlebis Albertsiit (Dunk.). PLATE IX. Fia, 1. Cladophlebis longipennis, sp. nov. Single pinna. Page 89. Fia. la. Pinnule enlarged, showing venation very clearly. P. 89. [V. 2204. ] Fic. 2. Nathorstia valdensis, gen. et sp. nov. Part of a frond. P. 147. Fia. 2a. Three pinnules enlarged ; no distinct veins shown. P. 147. [V. 2376. | Fia. 3. Teniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk). Imperfect frond. P. 126. Fia. 3a. Part of the leaf showing venation more clearly. P. 126. [V. 2381. ] Fia. 4. Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.). Four leaflets in their natural position ; the fifth, or middle one of the three uppermost, being a detached leaflet from another frond. P. 133. [V. 2272.] Fia. 5. Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.). Single leaflet showing venation very clearly. Slightly enlarged. P. 133. [V. 2353. ] Fia. 6. Phyllopteris acutifolia, sp. nov. Imperfect leaf. P. 143. [V. 2816. ] MWRALDEN PLANTS. Plate IX. C&GMWocdward del.etlith. West, Newman ix Cladophlebis, Nathorstia & Sagenopteris. Ti, Wray Be i PUATE Xs Fia. 1. Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). Rhizome and portions of fronds. Page 83. [V. 2731.] Fig. 2. Ruffordia Gépperti (Dunk.). Part of rhizome and petioles. P. 83. ; [V. 2812.] Fic. 3. Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.). Large specimen of frond, long pinnee with inclined pinnules. P. 119. [V. 2630. ] Piste x B.M.WEALDEN PLANTS. amp West, Newman EC &G.M Woodward delet lit . Ruffordia & Weichselia. PLATE X11. Fic. 1. Protopteris Witteana, Schenk. Portion of a stem axis showing leaf-bases and adventitious roots, etc. Page 73. Probably Mantell Coll. Fic. 2. The upper surface of Fig. 1 showing the form and arrangement of the vascular bundles. P. 73. Fia. 3. A single leaf-scar with the characteristic leaf-trace bundle. Pave: Fic. 4. Small piece of a stem vascular bundle. Magnified 45 times. Pie: a.= Tissue between leaf-bases. b.= Limit of Phloem. p.= Portions of the stem vascular bundles passing out to the petioles. 7. = Adventitious roots. s. =Sclerenchyma. t, = Leaf-trace. wemeS SAL B.MWEALDEN PLANTS. st Lb etu ie EC & GM Woodward del. LIST OF THE CURRENT NATURAL HISTORY PUBLICATIONS OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. The following publications can be purchased through the Agency of Messrs. LoNGMANS & Co., 39, Paternoster Row; Mr. Quarrrcu, 15, Piccadilly ; Messrs. KnGan Paut, ‘TRENCH, 'TRUBNER & Co., Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road; and Messrs. Durau & Co., 37, Soho Square ; or at the Naturat History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, S.W. Catalogue of the Specimens and Drawings of Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and Fishes of Nepal and Tibet. Presented by B. H. Hodgson, Hsq., to the British Museum. 2nd edition. By John Edward Gray. Pp. xii, 90. [With an account of the Collection by Mr. Hodgson.] 1863, 12mo. 2s. 3d. Report on the Zoological Collections made in the Indo-Pacific Ocean during the voyage of H.M.S. “Alert,” 1881-2. Pp. xxv., 684. 54 Plates. 1884, 8vo. Suminary of the Voyage - By Dr. R. W. Coppinger. Mammalia - - - , 0. Thomas. Aves - - sete bi bye Harpe, Reptilia, Batrachia, Pisces - ,, A. Giinther. Mollusca - - - ,, E. A. Smith. Echinodermata - sr) oud Bell, Crustacea’ - P =, gy Bet I. Miers; Coleoptera - . - 4 C. O. Waterhouse. Lepidoptera - : = +)54 AWG? Butler. Alcyonaria and Spongiida - ,, 5. O. Ridley. 1d. 108. MAMMALS. Catalogue of the Bones of Mammalia in the Collection of the British Museum. By Edward Gerrard. Pp. iv., 296. 1862, 8vo. ds.. Catalogue of Monkeys, Lemurs, and Fruit-eating Bats in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. J. H. Gray, F.R.S., &e. Pp. viii., 137. 21 Woodcuts. 1870, 8vo. 4s. Catalogue of Carnivorous, Pachydermatous, and Edentate Mam- malia in the British Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &e. Pp. vii., 398. 47 Woodcuts. 1869, 8vo. Gs. 6d. a 80204, 3000.—2/94. Wt. 22597. E.&S. A bo LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE Hand-List of Seals, Morses, Sea-Lions, and Sea-Bears in the British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp. 43. 30 Plates of Skulls. 1874, 8vo. 12s. 6d. Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the British Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &. 2nd edition. Pp. vii., 402. 101 Woodcuts. 1866, 8vo. 8s. Supplement. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp. vi. 103. 11 Woodcuts. 1871, 8vo. 2s. 6d. List of the Specimens of Cetacea in the Zoological Department of the British Museum. By William Henry Flower, LL.D., F.R.S., &e. [With Systematie and Alphabetical Indexes.} Pp. iv., 86. 1885, 8vo. 1s. 6d. Catalogue of Ruminant Mammalia (Pecora, Linneus) in the British Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp. viil., 102. 4 Plates. 1872, 8vo. 3s. 6d. Hand-List of the Edentate, Thick-skinned, azd Ruminant Mammals in the British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.R.S., &e. Pp. vii., 176. 42 Plates of Skuils, &c. 1873, 8vo. 12s. Catalogue of the Marsupialia and Monotremata in the Collection of the British Museum. By Oldfield Vhomas. Pp. xiii., 401. 4 coloured and 24 plain Plates. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.] 1888, 8vo. 1. 8s. BIRDS. Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum :— Vol. III. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Codio- morphe, containing the families Corvide, Paradiseide, Oriolide, Dicruride, and Prionopide. By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xiii., 343. Woodecuts and 14 coloured Plates. {With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. | 1877, 8vo. 17s. Vol. IV. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Cichlo- morphe: Part I., containing the families Campophagidee and Muscicapide. By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xvi., 494. Woodcuts and 14 coloured Pilates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1879, 8vo. 17. Vol. V. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Cvzchlo- morphe: Part II., containing the family Turdide (Warblers and Thrushes). By Henry Seebohm. Pp. xvi., 426. Woodcuts and 18 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.| 1881, 8vo. 14. BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 3 Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum—continued. Vol. VI. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Cichlo- morphe: Part III., containing the first portion of the family Timeliide (Babbling Thrushes). By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xiii, 420. Woodcuts and 18 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. | 1881, 8vo. 1. Vol. VII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Cichlo- morphe: Part IV., containing the concluding portion of the family Timeliide (Babbling Thrushes). By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xvi, 698. Woodeuts and 15 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1883, 8vo. 11. 6s. Vol. VIII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Cichlo- morphe : Part V., containing the families Paride and Laniide (Titmice and Shrikes) ; and Certhiomorphe (Creepers and Nuthatches). By Hans Gadow, M.A., Ph.D. Pp. xiii., 386. Woodcuts and 9 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1883, 8vo. 17s. Vol. IX. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Cinnyrimorphe, containing the families Nectariniide and Meliphagide (Sun Birds and Honey-eaters). By Hans Gadow, M.A., Ph.D. Pp. xii., 310. Woodcuts and 7 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1884, 8vo. 14s. Vol. X. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Fringzlliformes : Part I., containing the families Diceide, Hirundinide, Ampelide, Mniotiltide, and Motacillide. By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xiii.,682. Woodcuts and 12 coloured Plates, [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1885. 8vo. 1. 2s. Vol. XI. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Fringilliformes : Part II., containing the families Ccerebide, Tanagride, and Icteride. By Philip Lutley Sclater, M.A., F.R.S. Pp. xvii., 481. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] Woodcuts and 18 coloured Plates. 1886, 8vo.1/. Vol. XIJ. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Pringill- _ formes: Part IIT., containing the family Fringillide. By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xv., 871. Woodcuts and 16 coloured Plates. [With Systematic aud Alphabetical Indexes.] 1888, 8vo. 1. 8s. Vol. XIII. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Sturni- he? 4 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum—continued. formes, containing the families Artamide, Sturnide, Ploceide, and Alaudide. Also the families Atrichiidz and Menuride. By R. Bowdler Sharpe. Pp. xvi., 701. Woodcuts and 15 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.; 1890, 8vo., 11. 8s. Vol. XIV. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Oligo- myode, or the families Tyrannide, Oxyrhamphide, Pipride, Cotingide, Phytotomide, Philepittide, Pittide, Xenicide, and Eurylemide. By Philip Lutiey Sclater, M.A., F.R.S. Pp. xix.,494. Woodcuts and 26 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. | 1888, 8vo. 12. 4s. Vol. XV. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the Collection of the British Museum. Tracheo- phone, or the families Dendrocolaptide, Formicariide, Conopophagide, and Pteroptochide. By Philip Lutley Sclater, M.A., F.R.S. Pp. xvii, 371. Woodcuts and 20 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1890, 8vo. 17. Vol. XVI. Catalogue of the Picarie in the Collection of the British Museum. Upupe@e and Trochili, by Osbert Salvin. Coracie, of the families Cypselide, Caprimul- gidz, Podargidx, and Steatornithide, by Ernst Hartert Pp. xvi. 703. Woodcuts and 14 coloured Plates. [| With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1892, 8vo. 12. 16s. Vol. XVII. Catalogue of the Picaviz in the Collection of the British Museum. Coracie (contin.) and Halcyones, with the families Leptosomatide, Coraciide, Meropide, Alcedinide, Momotide, Totide, and Collide, by R. Bowdler Sharpe. Bucerotes and Trogones, by W. R. Ogilvie Grant. Pp. xi., 522. Woodcuts and 17 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. | 1892;'6vo. WZ!" 10s. Vol. XVIII. Catalogue of the Picariz in the Collection of the British Museum. Scansores, containing the family Picide. By Edward Hargitt. Pp. xv.,597. Woodcuts and 15 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.] 1890, 8vo. LZ. 6s. Vol. XTX. Catalogue of the Picariz in the Collection of the British Museum. Scansores and Coccyges : containing the families Rhamphastide, Galbulide, and Bucconide, by P. L. Sclater ; and the families Indicatoride,Capitonide, Cuculide, and Musophagide, by G. E. Shelley. Pp. xii., 484: 13 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.] 1891, 8vo. 1d. 5s. Vol. XX. Catalogue of the Psittaci, or Parrots, in the Collection of the British Museum. By TT. Salvadori. BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 5 Pp. xvii., 658 : woodcuts and 18 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1891, 8vo. 1d. 10s. Vol. XXI. Catalogue of the Columbe, or Pigeons, in the Collection of the British Museum. By T. Salvadori. Pp. xvii., 676: 15 coloured plates. [| With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1893, 8vo. 12. 10s. Vol. XXIT. Catalogue of the Game Birds (Pterocletes, Galline, Opisthocomi, Hemipodit), in the Collection of the British Museum. By W. R. Ogilvie Grant. Pp. xvi., 585: 8 coloured plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1898, 8vo. 10. 6s. Hand-List of Genera and Species of Birds, distinguishing those contained in the British Museum. By G. R. Gray, F.R.S., &e. -— Part II. Conirostres, Scansores, Columb, and Gallinz. Pp. xv., 278. [Table of Genera and Subgenera: Part II. | 1870, 8vo. 6s. Part III. Struthiones, Gralle, and Anseres, with Indices of Generic and Specific Names. Pp. xi., 350. ['Table of Genera and Subgenera: Part III.| 1871, 8vo. 8s. List of the Specimens of Birds in the Collection of the British Museum. By George Robert Gray :— Part III., Sections III. and IV. Capitonide and Picide. [With Index.] Pp.137. 1868, 12mo. ls. 6d. Part IV. Columbe. [With Index.] Pp. 73. 1856, 12mo. Is. 9d. Part V. Galline. Pp. iv., 120. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1867, 12mo. 1s. 6d. Catalogue of the Birds of the Tropical Islands of the Pacific Ocean in the Collection of the British Museum. By George Robert. Gray, F.L.S., &e. Pp. 72. [With an Alphabetical Index.| 1859, 8vo. 1s. 6d. REPTILES. Catalogue of the Tortoises, Crocodiles, and Amphisbzenians in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, E.R.S., &. Pp. viii, 80. [With an Alphabetical Index. ] 1844, 12mo., Ls. Catalogue of Shield Reptiles in the Collection of the British Museum. By John Edward Gray, F.R.S., &e. :— Part I. Testudinata (Tortoises). Pp. 79. 50 plates. 1856, 4to. 21. LOs. Supplement. With Figures of the Skulls of 36 Genera. Pp. ix., 120. 40 Woodcuts. 1870, 4to. 10s. Appendix. Pp. 28. 1872, 4te. 2s. Ed. Part IJ. Emydosaurians, Rhynchocephalia, and Amphis- benians. Pp. vi., 41. 25 Woodcuts. 1872, 4to. 3s. 6d. 6 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE Hand-List of the Specimens of Shield Reptiles in the British Museum. By Dr. J. E. Gray, F.R.S., F.L.S., &c. Pp. iv., 124. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1873, 8vo. 4s. Catalogue of the Chelonians, Rhynchocephalians, and Crocodiles in the British Museum (Natural History). New Edition. By George Albert Boulenger. Pp. x., 311. 73. Woodeuts and 6 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1889, 8vo. 15s. Gigantic Land Tortoises (living and extinct) in the Collection of the British Museum. By Albert C. L. G. Giinther, M.A., M.D., Ph.D., F.R.S. Pp. iv., 96. 55 Piates, and two Charts of the Aldabra group of Islands, north-west of Madagascar. [With a Systematic Synopsis of the Extinct and Living Gigantic Land Tortoises.| 1877, 4to. 17. 10s. Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural His- tory). Second edition. By George Albert Boulenger :— Vol. I. Geckonide, Eublepharide, Uroplatide, Pygo- podide, Agamide. Pp. xii., 486. 32 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1885, 8vo. 20s. Vol. If. Iguanide, Xenosauride, Zonuride, Anguide, Anniellidea, Helodermatide, Varanide, Xantusiide, Teiide, Amphisbenide. Pp. xiii, 497. 24 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1885, Svo. 20s. Vol. III. Lacertide, Gerrhosauride, Scincide, Anelytro- pide, Dibamidze, Chameleontide. Pp. xii., 575. 40 Plates. [With a Systematic Index and an Alphabetical Index to the three volumes.] 1887, 8vo. 1. 6s. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural His- tory). Vol. I., containing the families Typhlopide, Glauconiide, Boide, Ilysiide, Uropeltide, Xenopeltide, and Colubride aglyphe, part. By George Albert Boulenger. Pp. xiii., 448. 26 Woodcuts and 48 plates. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.] 1893, 8vo. 12. 1s. Catalogue of Colubrine Snakes in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Albert Giinther. Pp. xvi., 281. [With Geographical, Systematic, and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1858, 12mo. 4s. BATRACHIANS. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Albert Giinther. Pp. xvi. 160. 12 Plates. [With Systematic, Geographical, and Alphabetical Indexes.| 1858, 8vo. 6s. BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). ¥ Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia, s. Ecaudata, in the Collection of the British Museum. Second Edition. By George Albert Boulenger. Pp. xvi., 503. Woodcuts and 30 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1882, 8vo. 1/. 10s. Catalogue of the Batrachia Gradientia, s. Caudata, and Batrachia Apoda in the Collection of the British Museum. Second edition. By George Albert Boulenger. Pp. viii., 127. 9 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.| 1882, 8vo. 9s. FISHES. Catalogue of the Fishes in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Aibert Ginther, F.R.S., &e. :— Vol. III. Acanthopterygii (Gebiidwe, Discoboli, Oxuder- cide, Batrachide, Pediculati, Blenniide, Acanthoclinide, Comephoridez, Trachypteride, Lophotide, Teuthidide, Acronuride, Hoplognathide, Malacanthide, Nandide, Polycentridz, Labyrinthici, Luciocephalide, Atherinide, Mugilide, Ophiocephalide, Trichonotide, Cepolide, Gobiesocidz, Psychrolutide, Centriscide, Fistularide, Mastacembelidz, Notacanthi). Pp. xxv., 586. Wood- cuts. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes, and a Systematic Synopsis of the families of the Acanthop- terygian Fishes.| 1861, 8vo., 10s. 6d. Vol. [V. Acanthopterygii pharyngognathi and Anacan- thini. Pp. xxi. 534. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.| 1862, 8vo. 8s. 6d. Vol. V. Physostomi (Siluride, Characinide, Haplochi- tonide, Sternoptychide, Scopelide, Stomiatide). Pp. xxii., 455. Woodcuts. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.] 1864, 8vo. 8s. Vol. VII. Physostomi (Heterophygii, Cyprinide, Gono- rhynchide, Hyodontide, Osteoglosside, Clupeida, Chirocentride, Alepocephalidz, Notopteride, Halo- sauride). Pp. xx.,512. Woodeuts. [With System- atic and Alphabetical Indexes.| 1868, 8vo. 8s. Vol. VIII. Physostomi (Gymnotide, Symbranchide, Murenide, Pegaside), Lophobranchii, Plectognathi, Dipnoi, Ganoidei, Chondropterygii, Cyclostomata, Lep- _tocardii. Pp. xxv.,549. [With Systematic and Alpha- betical Indexes.] 1870, 8vo. 8s. 6d. List of the Specimens of Fish in the Collection of the British Museum. Part I. Chondropterygii. By J. E. Gray. Pp. x., 160. 2 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. | 1851, 12mo. 3s. Catalogue of Fish collected and described by Laurence Theodore Gronow, now in the British Museum. Pp. vil.,196. [Witha Systematic Index.] 1854, 12mo. 3s. 6d. 8 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE Catalogue of Lophobranchiate Fish in the Collection of the British Museum. By J. J. Kaup, Ph.D., &. Pp. iv., 80. 4 Plates. [| With an Alphabetical Index.] 1856, 12mo. 2s. MOLLUSCA. Guide to the Systematic Distribution of Mollusca in the British Museum. Part I. By John Edward Gray, Ph.D., F.R.S., &e. Pp. xii., 230. 121 Woodcuts. 1857, 8vo. ds. Catalogue of the Collection of Mazatlan Shells in the British Museum, collected by Frederick Reigen. Described by Philip P. Carpenter. Pp. xvi. 552. 1857, 12mo. 8s. List of Mollusca and Shells in the Collection of the British Museum, collected and described by MM’. Eydoux and Souleyet in the “ Voyage autour du Monde, exécuté pendant les années ** 1836 et 1837, sur la Corvette ‘La Bonite,” and in the “ Histoire naturelle des Mollusques Ptéropodes,’ Par MM. P. C. A. L. Rang et Souleyet. Pp. iv., 27. 1855, 12mo. 8d. Catalogue of Pulmonata, or Air Breathing Mollusca, in the Col- lection of the British Museum. Part I. By Dr. Louis Pteiffer. Pp. iv., 192. Woodcuts. 1855, 12mo. 2s. 6d. Catalogue of the Auriculide, Proserpinide, and Truncatellide in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Louis Pfeiffer. Pp. iv., 150. Woodcuts. 1857, 12mo. 1s. 9d. List of the Mollusca in the Collection of the British Museum. By John Edward Gray, Ph.D., F.R.S., &e. Part I. Volutide. Pp. 23. 1855, 12mo. 6d. Part IT. Olivide. Pp. 41. 1865, 12mo. Is. Catalogue of the Conchifera, or Bivalve Shells, in the Collection of the British Museum. By M. Deshayes :— Part 1. Veneride, Cyprinide, Glauconomide, and Petri- colade. Pp. iv., 216. 1853, 12mo. 3s. Part II. Petricolade (concluded); Corbiculade. . Pp. 217-292. [With an Alphabetical Index to the two parts.] 1854, 12mo. 6d. BRACHIOPODA. Catalogue of Brachiopoda Ancylopoda or Lamp Shells in the Collection of the British Museum. [Jsswed as “ Catalogue of the Mollusca, Part IV.”] Pp. iv., 128. 25 Woodcuts. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1853, 12mo. 3s. POLYZOA. Catalogue of Marine Polyzoa in the Collection of the British Museum. Part IIT. Cyclostomata. By George Busk, F.R.S. Pp viii, 39. 388 Plates, [With a Systematic Index.] 1875, vo. DS; BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 9 CRUSTACEA. Catalogue of Crustacea in the Collection of the British Museum. Part I. Leucosiade. By Thomas Bell, V.P.R.S., Pres. L.S., &c. Pp. iv., 24. 1855, 8vo. 6d. Catalogue of the Specimens of Amphipodous Crustacea in the Collection of the British Museum. By C. Spence Bate, F.R.S., &c. Pp. iv., 399. 58 Plates. [With an Alphabetic al Index. | 1862, 8vo. UL. 5s. INSECTS. Coleopterous Insects. Nomenclature of Coleopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum :— Part V. Cucujide, &e. By Frederick Smith. [Also issued as “list of the Coleopterous Insects. Part I.’’| Pp. 25. 1851, 12mo. 6d. Part VI. Passalidz. By Frederick Smith. Pp. iv., 23. 1 Plate. [With Index.] 1852, 12mo. 8d. Part VII. Longicornia, I. By Adam White. Pp. iv., 174. 4 Plates. 1853, 12mo. 2s. 6d. Part VIII. Longicornia, II. By Adam White. Pp. 287. 6 Plates. 1855, 12mo. 3s. 6d. Part IX. Cassidide. By Charles H. Boheman, Professor of Natural History, Stockholm. Pp.225. [With Index. ] 1856, 12mo. 3s. Illustrations of Typical Specimens of Coleoptera in the Collection of the British Museum. Part I. Lycide. By Charles Owen Waterhouse. Pp. x., 83. 18 coloured Plates. [With Syste- matic and Alphabetical Indexes.| 1879, 8vo. 16s. Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of Madeira in the Collection of the British Museum. By T. Vernon Wollaston, M.A., F.1.S. Pp. xvi., 234: 1 plate. [With a Topographical Catalogue and an Alphabetical Index.] 1857, 8vo. 3s. Catalogue of the Coleopterous Insects of the Canaries in the Collec- tion of the British Museum. By T. Vernon Wollaston, M.A., B.LS. Pp. xii.,648. [With Topographical and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1864, 8vo. 10s. 6d. Catalogue of Halticide in the Collection of the British Museum. By the Rev. Hamlet Clark, M.A., F.L.S. Physapodes and (Edipodes. Part I. Pp. xii, 301. Frontispiece and 9 Plates. 1860, 8vo. 7s. Catalogue of Hispide in the Collection of the British Museum. By Joseph S. Baly, M.E.S., &. Part I. Pp. x. 172. 9 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index,] 1858, 8vo. 6s. @ 80204. Ad 10 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE Hymenopterous Insects. Catalogue of Hymenopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. By Frederick Smith. 12mo.:— Part I. Andrenide and Apide. Pp. 197. 6 Plates. 1853, 2s. 6d. Part II. Apide. Pp. 199-465. 6 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1854, 6s. Part III. Mutillide and Pompilide. Pp. 206. 6 Plates. 1855, 6s. Part IV. Sphegide, Larride, and Crabronide. Pp. 207- 497. 6 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1856, 6s. Part V. Vespide. Pp. 147. 6 Plates. [With an Alpha- betical Index.] 1857, 6s. Part VI. Formicide. Pp. 216. 14 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1858, 6s. Part VII. Dorylide and Thynnide. Pp. 76. 3 Plates. [ With an Alphabetical Index.] 1859, 2s. Descriptions of New Species of Hyraenoptera in the Collection of the British Museum. By Frederick Smith. Pp. xxi., 240. | With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1879, 8vo. 10s. List of Hymenoptera, with descriptions and figures of the Typical Specimens in the British Museum. Vol. I., Tenthredinide and Siricide. By W. F. Kirby. Pp. xxviii, 450. 16 coloured Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1882, Svo. 1Z. 18s. Dipterous Insects. List of the Specimens of Dipterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S. 12mo.:— Part II. Pp. 231-484. 1849. 3s. 6d. Part IV. Pp. 689-1172. [With an index to the four parts, and an Index of Donors.| 1849. 6s. Part V. Supplement I. Stratiomide, Xylophagide, and Tabanide. Pp. iv., 330. 2 Cuts. 1854. 4s. 6d. Part VI. Supplement II. Acroceride and part of the family Asilide. Pp. ii., 331-506. 8 Cuts. 1854. 3s. Part VII. Supplement III. Asilide. Pp. ii., 507-775 1855. 3s. 6d. Lepidopterous Insects. Illustrations of Typical Specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera in the Collection of the British Museum :— Part I. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xiii., 62. 20 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic Index.] 1877, 4to, 2d. BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY), it Illustrations of Typical Specimens of Lepidoptera Heterocera, &e.—continued. Part III. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xviii. 82. 41-60 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic Index. ] 1879, 4to. 2/. 10s. Part Y. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xii., 74. 78-100 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic Index. ] 1881, 4to. 27. 10s. Part VI. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. xv., 89. 101-120 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic Index. |] 1886, 4to. 2/. 4s. Part VII. By Arthur Gardiner Butler. Pp. iv., 124. 121-138 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic List. ] 1889, 4to. 2/. Part VIII. The Lepidoptera Heterocera of the Nilgiri District. By George Francis Hampson. Pp. iy., 144. 139-156 Coloured Plates. [With a Systematic List. | 1891, 4to. 22. Part IX. The Macrolepidoptera, Heterocera of Ceylon. By George Francis Hampson. Pp. v., 182. 157-176 Coloured Plates. [With a General Systematic List of Species collected in, or recorded from, Ceylon.] 1893, 4to. 21. 2s. Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera of the family Satyridz in the Collection of the British Museum. By Arthur Gardiner Butler, F.L.S., &e. Pp. vi., 211. 5 Plates. [ With an Alphabetical Index.] 1868, 8vo. 5s. 6d. Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera described by Fabricius in the Collection of the British Museum. By Arthur Gardiner Butler, E15. &c. Pp. iv., 303. 3 Plates. 1869, 8vo..7s. 6d. Specimen of a Catalogue of Lycenide in the British Museum. By W.C. Hewitson. Pp. 15. 8 Coloured Plates. 1862, 4to. 14. Ls. List of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. Part I. Papilionide. By G. R. Gray, F.L.S. Pp. 106. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1856, 12mo. 2s. List of tie Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker. 12mu. :— Part VI. Lepidoptera Heterocera. Pp. 1258-1507. 1855, 3s. 6d. Part XIX. Pyralides. Pp. 799-1036. [With an Alpha- betical Index to Parts XVI.-XIX.] 1859, 3s. 6d. Part XX. Geometrites. Pp. 1-276. 1860, 4s. Part XXI. —————— Pp. 277-498. 1860, 3s. Part XXII. — Pp. 499-755. 1861, 3s. 6d. Part XXIII. ————-—__ Pp. 756-1020. 1861, 3s. 6d. Part XXIV. ———-——-_ Pp. 1021-1280. 1862, 3s. 6d. Part XXV. ——————__ Pp. 1281-1477. 1862, 3s. Part! XX VI. -—-—--— Pp. 1478-1796. [With an Alphabetical Index to Parts XX.—XXVI.] — 1862, 4s. 6d. 12 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects, &e.—continued. Part XXVIII. Crambites and Tortricites. Pp. 1-286. 1863, 4s. Part XXVIII. Tortricites and Tineites. Pp. 287-561. 1863, 4s. Part XXIX. Tineites. Pp. 562-835. 1864, 4s. Part XXX. — Pp. 836-1096. [With an Alpha- betical Index to Parts XXVII.-XXX.] 1864, 4s. Part XXXI. Supplement. Pp. 1-321. 1864, 5s. Part XXXIT. Part 2. Pp. 322-706. 1865, 5s. Part XX XIII. ————— _ Part 3. Pp. 707-1120. 1865, 6s. Part XXXTV. ————— Part 4. Pp. 1121-1538. 1865, 5s. 6d. Part XXXV. ————— Part 5. Pp. 1534-2040. [ With an Alphabetical Index to Parts XXXT~-XXXV. ] 1866, 7s. Neuropterous Insects. Catalogue of the Specimens of Neuropterous Insects in the Collec- tion of the British Museum. By Francis Walker. 12mo. :— Part I. (Phryganides—Perlides.) Pp. iv., 192. 1852, 2s. 6d. Part II. Sialide—Nemopterides. Pp. ii., 193-476. 1853, 3s. 6d. Part III. Termitide—Ephemeride. Pp. ii., 477-585. 1853, 1s. 6d. Part IV. Odonata. Pp. ii., 587-658. 1853, 12mo. Is. Catalogue of the Specimens of Neuropterous Insects in the Col- lection of the British Museum. By Dr. H. Hagen. Part I. Termitina. Pp. 34. 1858, 12mo. 6d. Orthopterous Insects. Catalogue of Orthopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. Part I. Phasmide. By John Obadiah Westwood, F.LS., &e. Pp. 195. 48 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1859, 4to. 34. | Catalogue of the Specimens of Blattariz in the Collection-of the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S., &. Pp. 289. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1868, 8vo. ds. 6d. Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria [Part I.] and Supplement to the Blattariz in the Collection of the British Museum. Gryllide. Blattarie. Locustide. By Francis Walker, F.L.S., &c. * Pp. 224. [With an Alphabetical Index. ] 1869, 8vo. 5s. BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 13 Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S., &e.— Part IL. Locustide (continued). Pp. 225-423. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1869, 8vo. 4s. 6d. Part III. Locustide (continued).—Acridide. Pp. 425- 604. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1870, 8vo. 4s. Part IV. Acridide (continued). Pp. 605-809. [With an Alphabetical Index.| 1870, 8vo. 6s. Part V. Tettigide.—-Supplement to the Catalogue of Blat- tarie— Supplement to the Catalogue of Dermaptera Saltatoria (with remarks on the Geographical Distribution of Dermaptera). Pp. 811-850; 48; 116. [With Alphabetical Indexes.] 1870, 8vo. 6s. Hemipterous Insects. List of the Specimens of Hemipterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. By W.S. Dallas, F.L.S.:— Part I.. Pp. 368. 11 Plates. 1851, 12mo. 7s. Part II. Pp. 3869-590. Plates 12-15. 1852, 12mo. 4s. Catalogue of the Specimens of Heteropterous Hemiptera in the Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker, F.L.S., &e. 8yv0.:— Part I. Scutata. Pp. 240. 1867. 5s. Part II. Scutata (continued)... Pp. 241-417. 1867. 4s. Part II]. Pp. 415-599. [With an Alphabetical Index to Parts I., IL, III., and a Summary of Geographical Distribution of the Species mentioned.| 1868. 4s. 6d. Part IV. Pp. 211. [Alphabetical Index.] 1571. 6s. Part.V. Pp. 202. ——- 1872. 5s. Part VI. Pp. 210. ———-————~——_——. 1873. is. Part VII. Pp. 213. ————-———— 1873. 6s. Part VIII. Pp. 220. ———-——_-—-—-_—_ 1873. 6s. 6d. Homopterous Insects. List of the Specimens of Homopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. By Francis Walker. Supplement. Pp. i., 369. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1858, 12mo. 4s. 6d. VERMES. Catalogue of the Species of Entozoa, or Intestinal Worms, con- tained in the Collection of the British Museum. By Dr. Baird. Pp. iv., 182. 2 Plates. [With an Index of the Animals in which the Entozoa mentioned in the Catalogue are found; and an Index of Genera and Species.| 1853, 12mo. 2s, 14 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE ANTHOZOA. Catalogue of Sea-pens or Pennatulariide in the Collection of the British Museum. By J. E. Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp. iv., 40. 2 Woodeuts. 1870, 8vo. 1s. 6d. Catalogue of Lithophytes or Stony Corals in the Collection of the British Museum. By J. E. Gray, F.R.S., &c. Pp. iv., 51. 14 Woodcuts. 1870, 8vo. 3s. Catalogue of the Madreporariaa Corals in the British Museum (Natural History). Vol. I. The Genus Madrepora. By George Brook. Pp, xi., 212. 35 Collotype Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes, Explanation of Plates, and a Preface by Dr. Giinther.] 1893, 4to. 1/. 4s. BRITISH ANIMALS. Catalogue of British Birds in the Collection of the British Museum. By George Robert Gray, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &. Pp. xii., 248. [With a List of Species.] 1863, 8vo. 3s. 6d. Catalogue of British Hymenoptera in the Collection of the British Museum. Second edition. Part I. Andrenide and Apide. By Frederick Smith, M.E.S. New Issue. Pp. xi. 236. 11 Plates. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1891, 8vo. 6s. Catalogue of British Fossorial Hymenoptera, Formicidae, and Vespide in the Collection of the British Museum. By Frederick Smith, V.P.E.S. Pp. 236. 6 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1858, 12mo. 6s. A Catalogue of the British Non-parasitical Worms in the Collec- tion of the British Museum. By George Johnston, M.D., Edin., F.R.C.L. Ed., Li.D. Marischal Coll. Aberdeen, &c. Pp. 365. Woodcuts and 24 Plates. [With an Alphabetical Index. ] 1865, 8vo. 7s. Catalogue of the British Echinoderms in the British Museum (Natural History). By F. Jeffrey Bell, M.A. Pp. xvii. 202. Woodceuts and 16 Plates (2 coloured). [With Table of Con- tents, Tables of Distribution, Alphabetical Index, Description of the Plates, &c.| 1892, 8vo. 12s. 6d. List of the Specimens of British Animals in the Collection of the British Museum; with Synonyma and References to figures. 12mo, :— Part V. Lepidoptera. By J. F. Stephens. 1850. 2nd Edition. By H. T. Stainton and KE. Shepherd. Pp. iv. 224. 1856, 12mo. 1s. 9d. Part VII. Mollusca, Acephala, and Brachiopoda. By Dr. J. E. Gray. Pp. iv., 167. 1851, 12mo. 3s. 6d. Part XI. Anoplura or Parasitic Insects. By H. Denny. Pp, av.jol: » 2852, 1s. BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 15 List of the Specimens of British Animals, &¢.—continued. Part XIII. Nomenclature of Hymenoptera. By Frederick Smith. Pp. iv., 74. 1853, 12mo. 1s. 4d. Part XIV. Nomenclature of Neuroptera. By Adam White. Pp. iv., 16. 1858, 12mo. 6d. Part XV. Nomenclature of Diptera, I. By Adam White. Pp. iv., 42. 18538, 12mo. 1s. PLANTS. List of British Diatomacez in the Collection of the British Museum. By the Rev. W. Smith, F.L.S., &e. Pp. iv.,55. 1859, 12mo. Is. FOSSILS. Catalogue of the Fossil Mammalia in the British Museum (Natural History). By Richard Lydekker, B.A., F.G.S.:— Part I. Containing the Orders Primates, Chiroptera, Insec- tivora, Carnivora, and Rodentia. Pp. xxx., 268. 33 Woodcuts. [With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes. | 1885, 8vo. 5s. Part II. Containing the Order Ungulata, Suborder Artio- dactyla. Pp. xxii.,324. 89 Woodeuts. [ With Systematic and Alphabetical Indexes.] 1886, 8vo. 6s. Part III. Containing the Order Ungulata, Suborders Peris- sodactyla, Toxodontia, Condylarthra, and Amblypoda. Pp. xvi., 186. 380 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1886, 8vo. 4s. Part IV. Containing the Order Ungulata, Suborder Probos- cidea, Pp. xxiv., 2385. 32 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1886, 8vo. 5s. Part V. Containing the Group Tillodontia, the Orders Si- renia, Cetacea, Edentata, Marsupialia, Monotremata, and Supplement. Pp. xxxv., 845. 55 Woodcuts. [ With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Generaand Species, including Synonyms.] 1887, 8vo. 6s. Catalogue of the Fossil Birds in the British Museum (Natural History). By Richard Lydekker, B.A. Pp. xxvii., 368. 75 Woodceuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.|] 1891, 8vo. 10s. 6d. Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). By Richard Lydekker, B.A., F.G.S. :— Part I. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Protero- sauria. Pp. xxviii. 809. 69 Woodcuts. [With Sys- tematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1888, 8vo. 7s. 6d. 16 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia—continued. Part Il. Containing the Orders Ichthyopterygia and Sauropterygia. Pp. xxi. 307. 85 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1889, 8vo. 7s. 6d. Part III. Containing the Order Chelonia. Pp. xviii., 239. 53 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms. | 1889, Svo. 7s. 6d. Part IV. Containing the Orders Anomodontia, Ecaudata, Caudata, and Labyrinthodontia; and Supplement. Pp. xxiii., 295. 66 Woodcuts. [With Systematic Index, Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species to the entire work.] 1890, 8vo. 7s. 6d. Catalogue of the Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (Natural History). By Arthur Smith Woodward, F.G.S., F.Z.S.:— Part I. Containing the Elasmobranchii. Pp. xlvii., 474. 13 Woodcuts and 17 Plates. [With Alphabetical Index, and Systematic Index of Genera and Species.] 1859, 8vo. 21s. Part II. Containing the Elasmobranchii (Acanthodii), Holocephali, [chthyodorulites, Ostracodermi, Dipnoi, and Teleostomi (Crossopterygii and Chondrostean Actinop- terygii). Pp. xliv., 567. 58 Woodcuts and 16 Plates. [With Alphabetical Index, and Systematic Index of Genera and Species.| 1891, 8vo. 21s. Systematic List of the Edwards Collection of British Oligocene and Eocene Mullusca in the British Museum (Natural History), with references to the type-specimens from similar horizons contained in other collections belonging to the Geological Department of the Museum. By Richard Bullen Newton, F.G.S. Pp. xxviii., 865. [With table of Families and Genera, Bibliography, Correlation-table, Appendix, and Aiphabetical Index.| 1891, 8vo. 6s. Catalogue of the Fossil Cephalopoda in the British Museum (Natural History). By Arthur H. Foord, F.G.S.:— Part I. Containing part of the Suborder Nautiloidea, con- sisting of the families Orthoceratide, Endoceratide, Actinoceratide, Gomphoceratidz, Ascoceratide, Poterio- ceratidee, Cyrtoceratide, and Supplement. Pp. xxxi., 344. 51 Woodeuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] 1888, 8vo. 10s. 6d. Part I1. Containing the remainder of the Suborder Nauti- loidea, cousisting of the families Lituitide, 'Trochocera- tide, Nautilide, and Supplement. Pp. xxviii., 407. 86 Woodeuts. [With Systematic Index, and Alphabetical Index of Genera and Species, including Synonyms.] - 1891, 8vo. 15s. oe BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY). 17 A Catalogue of British Fossil Crustacea, with their Synonyms and the Range in Time of each Genus and Order. By Henry Woodward, F.R.S. Pp. xii, 155. [With an Alphabetical Index.] 1877, 8vo. 5s. Catalogue of the Blastoidea in the Geological Department of the British Museum (Natural History), with an account of the morphology and systematic position of the group, and a revision of the genera and species. By Robert Etheridge, jun., of the Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), and P. Herbert Carpenter, D.Sc., F.R.S., F.L.S. (of Eton College). [With Preface by Dr. H. Woodward, Table of Contents, General Index, Explanations of the Plates, &c.] Pp. xv., 3822. 20 Plates. 1886, 4to. 25s. Catalogue of the Fossil Sponges in the Geological Department of the British Museum (Natural History). With descriptions of new and little known species. By George Jennings Hinde, Ph.D., F.G.S. Pp. viii., 248. 38 Plates. [With a Tabular List of Species, arranged in Zoological aud Stratigraphical sequence, and an Alphabetical Index.| 1883, 4to. 1d. 10s. Catalogue of the Fossil Foraminifera in tne British Museum (Natural History). By Professor T. Rupert Jones, F.R.S., &c. Pp. xxiv., 100. [With Geographical and Alphabetical Indexes.| 1882, 8vo. 5s. Catalogue of the Palzozoic Plants in the Department of Geology and Palzontology, British Museum (Natural History). By Robert Kidston, F.G.S. Pp. viii, 288. [With alist of works quoted, and an Index.| 1886, 8vo. 5s. GUIDE-BOOKS. ( To be obtained only at the Museum.) A General Guide to the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. [By W. H. Flower.| With 2 Plans, 2 views of the building, and an illustrated cover. Pp.78. 1893, 8vo. 3d. Guide to the Galleries of Mammalia (Mammalian, Osteological, Cetacean) in the Department of Zoology of the British Museum (Natural History). [By A. Ginther.] 4th Edition. Pp. 126. 57 Woodcuts and 2 Plans. Index. 1892, 8vo. 6d. Guide to the Galleries of Reptiles and Fishes in the Department of Zoology of the British Museum (Natural History). [By A. Giiuther.| 3rd Edition. Pp. iv. 119. 101 Woodcuts and 1 Plan. Index. 1893, 8vo. 6d. Guide to the Shell and Starfish Galleries (Mollusca, Echinoder- mata, Vermes), in the Department of Zoology of the British Museum (Natural History). [By A. Ginther.] 2nd Edition. Pp. iv., 74. 51 Woodcutsand1 Plan. 1888, 8vo. 4d. 18 A Guide to the Exhibition Galleries of the Department of Geology and Paleontology in the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. [New Edition. By Henry Woodward. |— Part I. Fossil Mammals ard Birds. Pp. xii., 108. 119 Woodcuis and 1 Plan. 1890, 8vo. 6d. Part II. Fossil Reptiles, Fishes, and Invertebrates. Pp. xii., 109. 94 Woodcuts and 1 Plan. 1890, 8vo. 6d. Guide to the Collection of Fossil Fishes in the Department of Geology aud Palzontology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, South Kensington. [By Henry Woodward. | 2nd Edition., Pp. 51. 81 Woodcuts. Index. 1888, 8vo. 4d. Guide to Sowerby’s Models of British Fungi in the Department of Botany, British Museum (Natural History). By Worthington G. Smith, F.L.S. Pp. 82. 93 Woodecuts. With Table of Diagnostic Characters and Index. 1893, 8vo. 4d. A Guide to the Mineral Gallery of the British Museum (Natural History). [By L. Fletcher.] Pp. 32. Plan. 1898, 8vo. ld. An Introduction to the Study of Minerals, with a Guide to the Mineral Gallery of the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S.W. [By lL. Fletcher.] Pp. 120. With numerous Diagrams, a Plan of the Mineral Gallery, and an Index. 1894, 8vo. 6d. The Student’s Index to the Collection of Minerals, British Museum (Natural History). New Edition. Pp. 32. With a Plan of the Mineral Gallery. 1898, 8vo. 2d. An Introduction to the Study of Meteorites, with a List of the Meteorites represented in the Collection. [By L. Fletcher. ] Pp. 91. [With a Plan of the Mineral Gallery, and an Index to the Metecrites represented in the Collection.] 1898, 8vo. 3d. W. H. FLOWER, Director. British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. February idth, 1894. qe 908 B Rattan: British Museum ‘(Nat. Hist.) Geiolody q University of Toronto Library DO NOT REMOVE THE CARD FROM THIS POCKET " Acme Library Card Pocket Under Pat. “Ref, Index File” Made by LIBRARY BUREAU \ ) — — — on