UNIVERSITEITSBIBLIOTHEEK UTRECHT

4100 7448

CATALOGUE

MESOZOIC PLANTS

department op geology

PAET I.

CATALOGUE

MESOZOIC PLANTS

DEPAETMENT OE GEOLOGY

BEITISH MUSEUM

(NATURAL HISTORY).

the wealden flora.

Paht i._thallophyta—pteridophyta.

PLATES I-XI.

BY

A. C. SEWAED, 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.

R. (ÏUARITCH, 15, PICCADILLY. DULATJ AND CO., 37, SOHO SOTARE, S.W. REGAN PAUL AND CO., CHARING CROSS ROAD, W.C.

AND AT THE

BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY), CROMWELL ROAD, S.W.

1894.

HERTFORD:

rillNTED 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.nbsp;The area in which the W^ealden beds are developednbsp;extends over a considerable part of Surrey, Sussex andnbsp;Kent, between Haslemere, Hythe and Pevensey; theynbsp;are also found in Dorsetshire and the Isle of Wight.nbsp;But it is more particularly in the neighbourhood ofnbsp;Hastings that the more important fossil remains havenbsp;been obtained. The beds exhibit evidence of havingnbsp;been accumulated in an estuary or lake, where freshwater conditions prevailed. The Flora includes Coniferse,nbsp;Cycads, Ferns, etc., the Fauna Ostracoda {Gypridea)-,nbsp;Insect remains; Mollusca {Gyrena, Unio, Melanopsis, Palii-dim, etc.); Fishes {Lepidotus, Eyhodus, etc.); Eeptilesnbsp;(Crocodilia and Dinosauria); Mammals (Plagiaulax).

Our earliest information respecting the strata is mainly due to the labours of Mantell and Fitton.

Stokes and Webb, Eobert Brown, Fitton, Brongniart, Dunker, Schimper, Carruthers, Count Solms-Laubach andnbsp;others have noticed and described its fossil plants, butnbsp;Mantell’s name will always be more particularly associated with the discoveries of organic remains, and withnbsp;the history of the Wealden area.

ATJTHOK S PUEFACE.

In certain parts of the work I have received valuable assistance from Mr. C. Davies Sherborn. Mr. Rufford,nbsp;whose labours have been the primary cause of thisnbsp;Catalogue, has aided me from time to time by helpfulnbsp;suggestions, and by his accurate local knowledge of thenbsp;Wealden flora in the neighbourhood of Hastings.

In conclusion I wish to express my thanks for communications. received from the Marquis of Saporta, Prof. Stenzel of Breslau, Prof. Zeiller of Paris, and Dr. Bommernbsp;of Brussels.

A. C. SEWARD.

Cambuidge,

March 1894.

INTEODUCTION.

Befoue proceeding to deal in detail 'with, the fossil plants from the Wealden rooks of England, it may be useful to summarizenbsp;the results of previous workers in the field of Wealdennbsp;vegetation. After a sketch of the work already published bynbsp;English geologists and pateobotanists, we will briefly notice thosenbsp;records of fossil plants from other countries which may serve asnbsp;data, from which to draw conclusions as to the distribution ofnbsp;such floras as agree more or less closely with that of the Englishnbsp;AVealden.

The present volume is only concerned with the Thallophyta, Charophyta, Sryophyta and PteridopJiyto,, hut in the lists quotednbsp;in the following pages the higher plants are included. Innbsp;each case the specific names are reproduced unaltered from thenbsp;writings of the several authors, with the addition of the newernbsp;titles in those cases where a change has been proposed in thenbsp;present Volume.

ENGLAhID.

The term “Wealden” appears to have heen first proposed hj T. J. Martiu’ in 1828, and is a modification of Weald Measures,nbsp;instituted in 1822 by J. Middleton.^ Martin, in his Geological

¦ Geol. Mem. Sussex, p. 9.

2 H. B. Woodward, Geol. England and Wales, 1887, p. 356.

X nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INIEODUCTION.

Memoir,^{1 2} refers to the Wealden as including the Weald clay, Hastings sands, and Tilgate beds. In Topley’s exhaustivenbsp;Memoir on the “Geology of the Weald” the area occupied bynbsp;the rocks in question is spoken of as “ one of the best definednbsp;geographical tracts in England. Its boundary is the chalknbsp;escarpment, which, commencing at Folkestone Hill, near thenbsp;Straits of Dover, passes through the counties of Kent, Surrey,nbsp;Hants and Sussex, to the sea at Beachy Head. The oval-shapednbsp;area thus enclosed is what geologists have termed the Weald.” ‘

The fossils which form the subject of the present Monograph have been collected from rooks included in the Wealden Series,nbsp;as defined by H. B. Woodward in his “Geology of England andnbsp;Wales,” that is, in the strata which are “ developed over anbsp;considerable part of Surrey, Sussex and Kent, between Hasle-mere, Hythe and Pevensey; they are also found in Dorsetshirenbsp;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 Keocomian.

In a recent Monograph on the plants of the Potomac Flora of North America, Fontaine has thus referred to the want ofnbsp;a definite understanding as to the significance of these twonbsp;names:® “The two formations which are capable of misconception are the Wealden and Neocomian. By some, the Wealdennbsp;formation is regarded as an independent group, forming the uppermost member of the Jurassic. Others regard it as a series ofnbsp;beds contemporaneous with a portion of the Lower Neocomian,nbsp;formed in estuaries and marshes at the time when a portion ofnbsp;the typical Lower Neocomian, which is marine, was being deposited in the sea. The latter view is the one assumed in thisnbsp;[Fontaine’s] Memoir.” The term Neocomian is used by Fontainenbsp;as including the Ilrgonian and Aptian of D’Orhigny. He goesnbsp;on to say; “ When, then, reference is made to Neocomian plants.

1

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;H. B. 'Woodward, Geol. England and Wales, 1887, p. 40.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Topley, Weald, p. 1.

^ Potomac Plora, p. 331.

INTaOBUCTION.

fossils of the 'Wealden, Urgonian, and Aptian groups are included and not distinguished.” ^{1 2}

It will he well, therefore, at the outset to state definitely in what sense the term Wealden is used in the present Catalogue. Innbsp;his Memoir on the Weald, Topley expresses the opinion that thenbsp;Wealden and Purheck strata should be classed together as onenbsp;Unbroken series.^ This and similar statements by various geologists might be quoted in support of a Purheck-Wealden series,nbsp;and, possibly, such would best represent the true stratigraphicalnbsp;relations of the two sets of beds. On the other hand we are notnbsp;concerned here with any critical examination of the geologicalnbsp;evidence, whether stratigraphical or palaeontological; and for thenbsp;present, at least, it will be more convenient to conform to thenbsp;general usage of the term by English geologists, and includenbsp;the Wealden beds in the Cretaceous system to the exclusion ofnbsp;the Purheck.

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 ofnbsp;the Cretaceous system, in which the “Lower series” of thenbsp;system is defined as comprising the Lower Greensand (Vectian),nbsp;Weald Clay and Hastings Sands; the two latter being bracketednbsp;together as Neocomian.

In the correlation table of the Cretaceous system, given by the same authors, the Purheck beds are placed at the base in thenbsp;South-Eastern area.

In Geikie’s Text-hook^ the usual classifioation is adopted, the Purheck beds being regarded as the uppermost members of thenbsp;Jurassic system.

In this connection it may he of interest to quote the views recently put forward by Messrs. Pavlow and Lamplugh in theirnbsp;Essay on the Speeton Clay. Their correlation of four zones

1

^ Potomac Flora, p. 332.

^ Weald, p. 321.

® Cong. Géol. Int. App. B. Cretaceons, p. 77.

2

Text Book of Geology, 1893, p. 938.

INTRODUCTIOÏT.

of this East Yorkshire formation with quot;Wealden rocks of IS’orth-West Germany, England, and North Erance is expressed in tabular form as follows':—

FOUR ZONES OF SPEETON CLAY.

In another recent work, “Text Book of Comparative Geology,” by Kayser (translated and edited by Lake), we find this extremely

simple table in which the term quot;Wealden is used in the wider sense.^{1 2} Having thus defined the term quot;Wealden as employed by some ofnbsp;the most recent writers, and stated the sense in which it is used

1

’ Arg. Speetou, pp. 200-201.

2

p. 288.

UJlTEODtrCTIOK.

in the present work, we will proceed to a general sketch of quot;Wealden palseobotany.

In the early part of the present century the Wealden series of Southern England was examined by Mantell and Eitton, and itnbsp;is mainly to their labours that we owe our earliest knowledge ofnbsp;the life of that period. Gideon Mantell in 1822 published anbsp;work on “ The fossils of the South Downs, or Illustrations ofnbsp;the Geology of Sussex,” and included those rooks to which thenbsp;term Wealden is now applied under the so-called Greensandnbsp;formations, which he subdivided thus':—

Slron Sand.

Tilgate beds.

Weald or Oak Tree clay.

Greensand.

In the first of these subdivisions plant remains are recorded, but without any definite names, descriptions, or plates. The firstnbsp;figures and scientific names of Wealden plants are those containednbsp;in a paper contributed to the Transactions of the Geological Societynbsp;in 1824. Two members of the Council, Messrs. Stokes and Webb,nbsp;were appointed to describe certain fossils which had been forwardednbsp;to the Society by Mantell from Tilgate Forest; in the descriptionnbsp;of the plants “ invaluable assistance ” was received from Mr.nbsp;Robert Brown. The following species are mentioned, withnbsp;figures*:—

Olathraria anomala, S. and W.

Carpolithus Mantelli, S. and AY. =

? Equisetites Burchardt, Dunk.

Symempteris psilotoides, S. and AY. =

INISODVCTION.

reticulata as Lonchopteris Mantelli, Brong. In addition to these changes in nomenclature some additional species are recorded;nbsp;Cycadites Brongniarti, Mant., Sphenopterü Sillimani, Mant.=? Ony-chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.), and 8. P}iillipsii= Bufferdia Göppertinbsp;(Dunk.), ?i\so Lycopodites’i, Calaniites, sinA Bquisetum lyelli, Mant.

The same author furnishes a list of Wealden plants in a communication to the Geological Society entitled “A tabularnbsp;arrangement of the organic remains of the County of Sussex”;'nbsp;but in this list there are no species added to those already mentioned. Three years later Pitton’s important paper was published :nbsp;“ Observations on some of the Strata between the Chalk and thenbsp;Oxford Oolite in the South-East of England.” ® Under the headingnbsp;Wealden, he includes Weald Clay, Hastings Sands, and Purbeok.nbsp;Hew facts are brought forward with regard to the characteristicnbsp;and problematical fossil Endogenites erosa, S. and 'W. = TempsJcyanbsp;Schimperi, Corda, and a new species of Sphenopterü, 8. gracilis,nbsp;~EiiioTi.^= Sphenopterü Fittoni, sp. nov., is figured and brieflynbsp;described; the occurrence of a Coniferous cone is also noted.nbsp;Without attempting to follow each step in the progress of ournbsp;knowledge of Wealden floras, we may pass at once to a morenbsp;recent publication and notice what species are recorded. Innbsp;Topley’s Memoir, previously referred to, the following list ofnbsp;plants occurs':—

Araucarites {Zamiostrobus) Tipping^

Jordensis, Xing.

Carpolithes Mantellij Brong. =?

setites Biirchardti, Dunk.

Clathraria Zyelli^ S. and W.®

Endogenites erosa^ S. and shja Schimperi^ Corda.

Equisetites {Eqiiisetum) Lyelliiy Mant.

Lonchopteris Mantellij Brong. =

Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.).

Eterophyllum {Cycadites) Brongniarti^

Mant.

^ Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. iii. 1835, p. 201.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ibid. vol. iv. 1836, p. 103.

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;p. 181, figs. 1 and 2, and Appendix A. p. 349.

^ Weald, p. 409.

® I have substituted Stokes and Webb for Mantell as given by Topley as the authors of the species.

INTEODÜCTrOJT.

In the later edition of Dixon’s “ Geology of Sussex,” Carruthers has furnished a list of plants of Wealden age ; the followingnbsp;species being mentioned in addition to many of those included innbsp;Topley’s list ‘:—

Equisetum Burchardti^ Dunk.

setites Burehardtiy Dunk.

Pinites Dunkeriy Carr.

CycadeosirohuSy sp.

A brief sketch of the quot;Wealden flora is given by Bogle ^ in a paper on the “ quot;Wealden Strata of East Sussex,” hut no new speciesnbsp;are added to the lists of plants recorded by previous writers.

The next communication on this subject, to which reference need he made, is a note by E. H. Peyton in 1883,^ in which thenbsp;following additional species are recorded from British Wealdennbsp;strata;—Oleandriiium {Taniopteris) Beyrichii, Schenk, Peoopterunbsp;ifurclmoni, Dunk., and Pterophyllum Schaumburgense (Dunk.);nbsp;there is also a specimen mentioned which is considered to henbsp;probably Sphenopteris G'ópperti, Dunk. = Pujfordia Gopperiinbsp;(Dunk.).

In the later edition of Bristow’s “Geology of the Isle of Wight,” the following plants are mentioned as occurring innbsp;Wealden strata *: —

^ GeoL Sussex, 1878, n. 279.

^ Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Eastbourne, Hay 20, 1881. (T am in Kev. H. G. Jameson, of Eastbourne, for a short abstract of tbis paper.)nbsp;® Quart. Journ. GeoL Soc. voL xxxix. 1883, Proc. p. 3.

*¦ Geol. I. Wight, 1889, p. 258.

miEODUCTION.

In addition to the plants already enumerated, the following Gymnosperms must he noted from the papers of Carruthers,nbsp;Starkie Gardner, and others :—

In the Eeport on Mesozoic and Tertiary Gymnosperms presented to the British Association in 1886,^ there is the following statement, which has not been disproved by subsequent discoveries.nbsp;After speaking of some fossil plants previously mentioned bynbsp;Mantell and compared to Braemna, the writer of the Eeportnbsp;continues—“Ho other trace has been found of any more highlynbsp;organized plants than Ferns or Gymnosperms, and this, when wenbsp;remember that Monocotyledons were undoubtedly in existence,nbsp;is a fact that should be of great significance to speculativenbsp;geologists. The sediments must represent the deposits of anbsp;drainage system of a large area, for they are of vast extentnbsp;and thickness, varied in character, and abounding in remains ofnbsp;trunks and stems, fruits and foliage of plants. In them, therefore, if anywhere, we might reasonably expect to find, at least,nbsp;the trace of reed and rush, but the swamps seem to have beennbsp;tenanted only by Equisetums and Ferns, and the forests mainlynbsp;by Cycads and Conifers.” ^

This is especially noteworthy, as Angiosperms have been recorded in floras, agreeing in their general facies with the English quot;VVealden, from Horth America and Portugal.

The great majority of the specimens described in the present volume have been obtained by Mr. Eutford from thenbsp;quot;Wealden rocks in the neighbourhood of Hastings. I amnbsp;indebted to him for the following diagrammatic section andnbsp;brief description of the strata from which the material wasnbsp;obtained.

’ Geol. Mag. vol. iii. 1886, p. 543.

2 p. 243.

® Tbis statement bas reference to Britisb fossils only.

INTEODUCTIOÏT.

PBANCE.

Three species of Wealden plants are mentioned by Brongniart from Beauvais ':—

Lonchoptens Mantelli, Brong. = Weichselia Mantelli (Brong-.).

Pachypteris grMÜis, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;= Sphenopteris Fittani, sp. nov.

Brachyphyllum Gravesii, Brong.

De lapparent, in his “Traité de Geologie,”^ refers to the development of fresh - water infra - Cretaceous rocks south ofnbsp;Beauvais in the Pays de Bray, and notes the occurrence of thenbsp;common English fossil Weichselia Mantelli (Brong.).’

GEEMANT.

Dunker’s well-known Monograph,^ which appeared in 1846, deals exhaustively with the fresh-water formation of Uforthernnbsp;Germany, previously correlated by Hoffman with the Englishnbsp;quot;Wealden. These rooks are comprised in a stretch of countrynbsp;between Helmstadt and Bentheim, and are usually subdividednbsp;into two members, the lower consisting of sandstones, etc., andnbsp;the upper of clay beds; to the former the term Wealden ornbsp;Deister Sandstone (= Hastings Sands of English geologists) isnbsp;applied, and to the latter Weald Clay. The flora of these Northnbsp;German beds is obviously of the same facies as the Wealdennbsp;of England, and no doubt of the same geological age. It shouldnbsp;be noticed, however, that in Pavlow and Lamplugh’s Monograph,’nbsp;to which reference has already been made, it is stated that thenbsp;beds in Germany spoken of as Wealden have little in common withnbsp;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 Palmoxtjris,nbsp;Brong., which is described at some length from the Deister bedsnbsp;under the name of Palaohromelia Jugleri, Ett.’ The mention ofnbsp;Palmoxyris in this introductory sketch is not intended to imply

' Tableau, p. 107.

^ 1885, p. 1042; see also Passy, Descript. Géol. Seine-inf. p. 194.

5 Saporta has recently recorded another species from the Lower Wealden of Boulogne, Sphenopleris Pelgadoi, f Sap. = /S. Fittoni, nov. Eev. gen. hot.nbsp;vol. V. p. 366, 1893, pi. iv. fig. 6.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^ Wealdenbildung. * p. 189.

® Abh. k.-k. geol. Eeichs. vol. i. 1852, Abth. iii. p. 1.

INTEODUCIIOX.

that it should necessarily he included in the list of quot;Wealden plants; very possibly, as Zeiller and Renault have shown, this puzzle tonbsp;palaeobotanists may find its proper place among fossil animalsdnbsp;Schenk’s important contributions,® while correcting the earliernbsp;work of Bunker and others, supply much additional informationnbsp;as to the flora of the German quot;Wealden. Several of Bunker’snbsp;species are found by Schenk to have no claim to stand as such,nbsp;but are shown by the more perfect material collected since 1846nbsp;to be fragments of diflerent portions of one and the same species.

Following the two papers by Schenk we have a useful Monograph by Struekmann,® in which the following list of Wealden plants isnbsp;given; and this maybe taken to represent the species recorded fromnbsp;German Wealden rocks up to 1880.

Laccopteris Dunkeri, Schenk = dictyon Dunkeri (Schenk),nbsp;Sagenopteris Ilantelli (Dunk.).nbsp;Hausmannia dichotoma, Dunk.

Marsilidium speciosuniy Schenk. JeanpauUa Brauniana, Dunk.nbsp;Tempskya Schimperiy Corda.nbsp;Brotopteris Witteana, Schenk.nbsp;Clathraria Lyelliy S. and W,®nbsp;Cycadites JRoemeriy Schenk.nbsp;AnomozamitesSGhaumburgense(J)\ixk.).nbsp;Bterophyllum Lyellianum, Dunk.nbsp;Bioonites Bunkerianm (Gopp.).

B. G'óppertianus (Dunk.). Bachyphyllum curvifolium (Dunk.).

F. crassifoUum, Schenk.

Abietites Linkii (A. Rmr.). Sphenolepis Sternbergiana (Dunk.),

S. Kurriana (Dunk.).

Spirangium Jiigleri (Ett.).

* Compt. Rend. vol. evil. 1888, p. 1022.

al®ontographica, vol. xix. 1871, and vol. xxiii. 1875.

^ Weald. Hannover, p. 44.

The existence of Hunker’s Wealden species, F. Oeinitzii, seems to have been over ooked by Guthier and others, who make use of the same name for a Permiannbsp;AV.U ^ different character, e.g. See Sterzel, Plor. Roth. Plauenscheu Grunde,

Cl- ¦^“1- ^1^- P- 120’ 1*^3-

antell is given by Struckmann as the author of this species.

XX nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INTEODUCIIOiC.

In a paper by Hosius and Yon der Marck, published in the Palffiontographica for 1879-1880, a number of plants are figurednbsp;and described from the lYestphalian Chalk formation; thenbsp;following species are mentioned from the Lower Gault andnbsp;Neocomian':—

In a later communication from tlie same authors Pinus Quenstedtiy Heer, is added to the list of Neocomian plants from quot;Westphalia.^

A number of distinctly Wealden plants has been recorded from strata in the neighbourhood of Quedlinhurg, on the northernnbsp;side of the Hartz Mountains; these beds are spoken of as Lowernbsp;Quadersandstone and “ Hilssandstein.” The following species arenbsp;given by Schulze ®:—

Palseontographica, vol. xxvi. 1880, pp. 201 et seq.

Ibid. vol. xxxi. 1885, p. 231.

rior. subhercjn. Kreid. pp. 10 seq.

INTRODTJCTIOX.

In addition to these there are three species recorded from Langenberg near Quedlinburg ^:—

Weichselia Ludovica^ Stiehler= W, MantelU (Brong ).

Fterophyllum Brnestinoi^ Stiehler.

Pandanus Simildce, Stiehler.

In a recent communication from Struckmann^ on the strata between the Ililsthon'' and Wealden of North Germany, itnbsp;is pointed out that in England the brackish water-deposits atnbsp;the end of the Jurassic period seem to have continued for anbsp;longer time than in North Germany ; and this author suggestsnbsp;that the Wealden should be regarded not as a distinct formation,nbsp;but as a facies, consisting of brackish water-deposits at the closenbsp;of the Jurassic period, and which, in some places, extended tonbsp;the Chalk.

AESTEIA.

Ettingshausen in 1852 described a number of fossil plants from Zbbing and a few other localities, from beds considered to be ofnbsp;^^ealden age ; many of the species being identical with Wealdennbsp;plants of Northern Germany. The following species are recordednbsp;from these plant-bearing beds®:—

Confervites setaceus, Ett.

^^^gassites Tartschii, Ett.

^phcBrococites chondriaformiSy Ett.

^quisetites Burchardti^ Dunk.

Oyclopteris squamata, Ett.

(d. Mantellij Dunk. = ? Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.).

^phenopteris Mantellij Brong. = Ohi/-chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.).

¦^htkopteris recentior^ Ett. = ? Weich-

* Flor. subhercyn. Kreid. p. 14.

^ Jahrb. k. preuss. geol. Landesanst, 1889, p. 54.

^ Abb. k.-k. geol. Eeichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, 1852, p. 1.

XXll IlfTEODTJCTIOJr.

to the Jura and Wealden than to the Chalk period. The folloTv^ing additions are made to the species already included among thenbsp;plants from Ettingshausen’s quot;Wealden localities ‘:—

P. Hoheneyyerif Sch.

P. odovatiis, Sch.

Zamites CopperSch., and four other species.

Widdringtonites gracilis^ Heer ?

In Velenovsky’s contributions to Mesozoic botany we have certain species recorded from Lower Cretaceous rocks in Bohemianbsp;¦which point to a close agreement in facies with the North Germannbsp;and English Wealden. These beds are classed by Yelenovsky asnbsp;Cenomanian.^ Among the “ Eerns ” from Peruc and othernbsp;localities the following species occur, which are identical with ornbsp;closely allied to typical Wealden forms :—

P. Alhertini (Dunk.) = ? Cladophlehis Alhertsii (Dunk.).

Jeanpaulia carinata, Vel.

Bicksoniapunctata (Sternb.). Tempskya vaAans (Corda).

Among the Gymtiosperms from the same beds there are certain forms which closely resemble Wealden species ^—e.g.: —

Thinnfeldia DariaUlis, Vel. =?Sageno-pteris Mantelli (Dunk.).

NiJssonia Bohemica, Vel.

Sequoia Meichenbachi, Heer.

POETUGAL.

In his “Contributions a la flore fossil du Portugal” Heer has given descriptions and illustrations of the following species fromnbsp;two localities—Almargem and Valle de Lobos; these floras arenbsp;considered by him to be in “ intimate relation with the Wealdennbsp;flora.”^{1 2}

1

1 Palseontographica, vol. xix. 1871, p. 23.

^ Abh. k. böhm. Ges. Wiss. vii. Folg. Band ii. 1888. ® Gymn. böhm. Kreid.

2

Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. vi.

INTRODUCTIOH’.

More recently Saporta has published a note in the Comptes Rendus for 1891/ in which he mentions some interesting speciesnbsp;of fossil plants discovered at Cereal, between Cenomanian andnbsp;“ Neojurassic” beds. Among the ferns he draws attention tonbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brong., S. plurinervia, Hr., 8. valdensis,nbsp;Hr., and 8. angustiloha, Hr.; there are also two species ofnbsp;Sepatiem recorded, and two or three Lycopodiaoeons plants, with,nbsp;a remarkable new species, Isoetopsis Chojfati, referred to thenbsp;Isoetacece. Brachyphyllum, Sphemlepidium and Frenelopsis arenbsp;lt;luoted as Coniferous genera.

The most important fossils are, however, certain species which he considers to be Angiosperms, and especially Dicotyledons.nbsp;Poaoites, Brong., Zosteris, Brong., and Belgadoa, Sap., are placednbsp;among the Monocotyledons, with Protolemna and Protorrhipsis,nbsp;•A-ndr., as representatives of the oldest known Dicotyledons.

BELGIUM.

Under the head of Mealden plants we must include the following species of Cycads and Conifers described by Coemansnbsp;from Baume *;—

Compt. Eend. vol. cxiii. 1891, p. 249. See also Rev. gen. hot. vol. v. 1893. Mém. Ac. E. Relg. vol. xxxvi. 1867, p. 82.

INTE0DTJCTI02T.

Cgcadites SchacJiti, Coem.

Pinus Omaln^ Coem.

P. Sriarti, Coem.

P. {Cedrus Corneti P), Coem.

P. Andrcei^ Coem.

quot;Witli these species from St. Vaast there should be mentioned the following, which were discovered in the Colliery of Bernissart,nbsp;in the same beds which have yielded Igmnodon remains in suchnbsp;extraordinary abundance. The species included in the list arenbsp;given by Dupont in a paper published in 1878, Saporta beingnbsp;responsible for the names ^: —

Lonchopferis Mantellij Brong. = Weich-selia Mantelli (Brong.).

Pecopteris polymorpha^ Dunk. = Glado~ phlebis Punheri (Schimp.).

P. Conyheari^ Dunk. = Maionidiitm Gopperti (Ett.).

Alethopteris elegans, Gopp. =j!f. Gopperti (Ett.).

We have the late Prof. Newberry’s testimony’® that no trace of any Angiospermous species occurs among the plants found withnbsp;the Iguanodon remains at Bernissart.

Dr. Bommer, of Brussels, is at present engaged upon the examination of certain Wealden plants recently collected innbsp;the neighbourhood of the same locality from which Coeman’snbsp;specimens were obtained.®

EUSSIA.

In the Bull. Soc. nat. Moscou for 1844, Auerbach figures and gives brief descriptions of some fossil plants from Sandstonenbsp;strata in the province of Moscow.^ There is, however, no discussion in his paper as to the age of the rocks, but among thenbsp;figures a species is represented which has a striking resemblancenbsp;to Weichselia {Lonchopteris) Mantelli (Brong.). Turning to Murchison’s “Geology of Bussia” (1845), we find the statementnbsp;that no Wealden rocks occur either in Eussia or Poland.® The

' Bull. Ac. R. Belg. sér. ii. 1878, p. 396.

® Amer. Journ. vol. xli. 1891, p. 194.

® Letter from Dr. Bommer, ï7ov. 1893.

® Vol. xvii. 1844, 1, p. 145, pi. v.

® Geol. Eussia, yol. i. p. 260.

lïTTKODÜCXIOÏT.

geologic age of the Klin Sandstones from 'which Auerbach’s plants were obtained has given rise to considerable discussion;nbsp;according to Eichwald' the so-called “ Klin’sche Sandstein”nbsp;must he regarded as homotaxial with the Quadersandstein ; onnbsp;the other hand Trautschold/ ¦who has described the plants fromnbsp;these strata, insists on the close agreement of the flora withnbsp;that of the North German Wealden. He supports his ownnbsp;opinion as to the age of the Kiin beds against that of Eiohwald,nbsp;hy quoting Hunker’s views, based on an examination of thenbsp;plants. The following is a list of the species given in Traut-schold's Monograph; he points out the admixture of Jurassicnbsp;and Cretaceous forms, and recognizes that some of the speciesnbsp;undoubtedly give a MTealdeu facies to the flora.

Calamitesy sp. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1 I^ecopteris niprescens, Traut.

Bqmsetites^ sp, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1 F. decipiens, Traut, = Microdictyon

Odontopteris duhia^ Traut. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Funheri (Sctieuk)

Sphenopteris Auerbachi^ ^TB.UÏ.=Fuf- \ F, pachycarpa^^x^vX.

xjcopperii liiiT-r.}. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;i ...... ^{1 2}' nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.

Several of these determinations have been ]ustly ca

question hy Schenk.^ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;. v. p „inw

These plant beds of Klin, Tatarowo, etc., are place y a and Lamplugh on the same horizon as the ppernbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

(brackish or Purbeckian type) and the Hils ong omer Carruthers® has expressed the opinion, in anbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

in the eighth volume of the Geological Magazine ( nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;).

the facies of the Klin flora is Cretaceous in character.__

1

‘ Ball. Soc, nat. Moscou, vol. xxxiv. 1861, 4,

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Nouv. Mém. Soc. nat. Moscou, vol. xm. p. ¦

^ Palseoatographica, vol. xix. p. 261.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Arg. Speeton, pp. 200-201.

® Geol. Mag. vol. viii. p. 540.

XXVI nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INTEODUCTIOX.

GREENLAND.

Without quoting the Kome beds of Greenland as undoubtedly agreeing in the character of their flora with the Wealden ofnbsp;England and North Germany, it must he noted that Heer hasnbsp;insisted on the fact that there are several features in commonnbsp;between them and the rocks of Wealden age in more southernnbsp;latitudes.

This well-known flora ^ has been collected from several localities in the Noursoak Peninsula on the west coast of Greenland; itnbsp;is characterized, among Greenland fossil floras, by the almost totalnbsp;absence of Dicotyledons. We shall be in a better position tonbsp;examine the general characters of the Kome plants, and takenbsp;note of such species of distinctly Wealden type as are represented in these northern latitudes, when we have completed thenbsp;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 betweennbsp;the Kome flora and those of the Wernsdorfer beds and typicalnbsp;Wealden districts;^{1 2} certain nearly allied species are quoted innbsp;support of this assertion. Johnstrup, in the French remmé atnbsp;the end of the flfth volume of the Meddelelser om Gronland,nbsp;speaks of the Kome flora as undoubtedly TJrgonian in age.² Thenbsp;same flora is referred to by Dawson in a recent number ofnbsp;“Nature,”² as probably corresponding to the Kootanie ofnbsp;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 describednbsp;from the Potomac beds of North America. The term “Potomac ”

1

^ FI. loss. Arct. vols. iii. vi. and vii. See also Meddel. Gronland, vol. v. 1883. For list of fossils see FI. foss. Arct. vol. vii. pp. 173 et seq.

“ Heer, loc. cit. vol. vii. p. 157.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Meddel. Gronland, loc. cit. p. 227.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Vol. xlvü. 1893, p. 557.

INTEODUCTIOIf.

was first used fiy MoGree on account of the development of typical rocks of this series along the course of the Potomac river. Most ofnbsp;the plants from these strata were collected from Virginia, a fewnbsp;also from Maryland. Fontaine considers it very probable that thenbsp;Potomac beds were laid down under conditions very similar tonbsp;those characteristic of the European Wealden sediments ;' henbsp;shows, too, that there is an important floral element in thenbsp;Potomac vegetation which finds its nearest representative in thenbsp;Wealden rocks of Europe. Thê same author expresses astonishment at the unusually large number of new species which hisnbsp;researches have brought to light in the Potomac flora.^ Many ofnbsp;the specimens which he has figured are without doubt newnbsp;forms; hut, in looking carefully over the numerous illustrations,nbsp;it is difficult, in some cases, to appreciate the minute differencesnbsp;which are pointed to as evidence of specific distinctions, and thenbsp;impression is left that the list of new species is perhaps rathernbsp;longer than it need have heen. Be this as it may, thenbsp;flora is of exceptional interest, and throws fresh light on thenbsp;difficult problem of the evolution of Dicotyledons.

The following species are quoted hy Fontaine as identical with, or closely allied to, European Wealden plants^ :—

Ihe flora, as a whole, Fontaine considers to range from the

' Potomac Flora, p. 62. 2 Ibid. p. 33t.

^ pp. 350 et seq.

XXVlll nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INTEOBOTTION'.

quot;Wealden, through the TJrgonian, and prohahly including some Cenomanian forms.

Lester quot;Ward has discussed the geologic age of the Potomac flora in a paper published before the appearance of Fontaine’snbsp;Monograph; in a table intended to show the floral elements ofnbsp;this flora he demonstrates the predominance of the Wealdennbsp;facies.^ The evidence of the plants is obviously in favour ofnbsp;assigning these Eastern American strata to the Wealden period,nbsp;but Ward points to the vertebrate fossils as indicative of anbsp;Jurassic age, thus furnishing another example of an apparentnbsp;discrepancy between plants and animals as indices of geologicalnbsp;position. He does not wish to argue for the Jurassic age of thenbsp;Potomac flora, but remarks that “the most it is intended to claimnbsp;is that, if stratigraphioal relations and the animal remains shallnbsp;require its reference to the Jurassic, the plants do not presentnbsp;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 ofnbsp;opinion between palaeobotanists and palseozoologists.

Newberry,^ in view of the large number of Angiosperms in this flora, expressed himself in favour of a higher rather than a lowernbsp;horizon than the Wealden. The same author, in the papernbsp;referred to, gives an account of the flora of the Great Falls Coalfield, Montana; this coal-basin lies on the northern slope of thenbsp;Belt and Highwood Mountains, subordinate folds of the Eockynbsp;Mountain system. After speaking of Fontaine’s determination ofnbsp;the Great Falls plants, to whom they had been submitted fornbsp;examination, Hewberry concludes that these identifications “ provenbsp;conclusively the general identity of the geological horizons of thenbsp;Potomac group, the Great Falls group, the Kootanie group ofnbsp;Canada, and the Kome group of Greenland, and confirm the viewnbsp;advocated by Prof. Fontaine and myself that the Potomac group

¦ Amer. Journ. ser. iii. vol. xxxvi. 1888, p. 126. 2 Hid. p. 131.

2 Bull. TJ.8. Geol. Surv. No. 56, 1889, p. 38.

* Amer. Joum. vol. xli. 1891, p. 194.

XXIX

INXEODTJCTION.

is Lower Cretaceous and not Jurassic ; and, in another pla , adds ; With equal certainty we can assert that the ?« «mac,nbsp;the Kbotanie, and the Some groups represent perhaps dis menbsp;tut closely related epocts of tlie I^eocomiau or Lower C

of the Old World.” nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.

The following list shows the close resemhlance between

Great Falls flora and the Old World Wealden .

Thyrsopteris rarïnervis^ Font.

A plant near to Fodozamites distanti-nervis, Font.

Cladophlehis parva^ Font.

Sequoia Eeichenbachi, Heer.

Fecopteris Browniana, 'QxLxik. — Olado^ phlehis Browniana (Dunk.).

Aspidium Frederickshurgensey Font.

Sphenolepidium virginicumy Font.

A plant allied to Thyrs'ipteris brevi-folia. Font.

A plant near to Cladophlehis dlstans,

Font.

Thyrsopteris insignis. Font.

Carpolithus virginiensis, Font.

Equisetum Lyelli ?, Mant.

Aspidium Montanense, Font.

A, monoearpum, Font.

A, angustipinnatwn, Font., var. Montanense, Font.

Fecopteris Montanensis, Font.

F. Browniana, ? Dunk.

Cladophlehis heterophylla, Font. Osmunda dicksonioides. Font.

XXX nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INTEODUCTIOrr.

Pontaine’s figures, pi. Ixxxii. and PL VII. Pig. 3 of the present Catalogue.

In a posthumous work hy Lesquereux on the Flora óf the Dakota group, edited by Knowlton, we find this American floranbsp;correlated with that of the Harz Quadersandstein, also with thenbsp;floras of Hiederschona and Quedlinhurg.' Eeference has beennbsp;made to these German floras because certain of their floral elementsnbsp;show a close relationship to members of the typical quot;Wealdennbsp;vegetation; in the Dakota flora there seems to he hardly thenbsp;same reason for comparison with the Wealden floras of Southernnbsp;England and Northern Germany. The two species Oleichenianbsp;Nordenshioldi, Heer, and Sequoia Reichenhachi, Gein., are commonnbsp;to the Dakota and Potomac floras; several species also occur in thenbsp;Kootanie flora, in the Heocomian of Westphalia and the Hrgoniannbsp;of Home, but we do not find a distinct Wealden facies in thenbsp;Cenomanian Dakota flora.'^{1 2}

For a critical account of the Cretaceous rooks of America reference should be made to the Cretaceous Correlation papersnbsp;by C. A. White, which have appeared in a recent number ofnbsp;the United States Geological Survey Bulletins.^ The Potomacnbsp;formation is provisionally assigned to the base of the Cretaceousnbsp;system, but stress is laid on the difficulty of arriving at any verynbsp;definite conclusions as to the real age of this widespread deposit.nbsp;It is pointed out that a large proportion of the plant remainsnbsp;figured by Fontaine from Virginia were found in rounded andnbsp;lenticular masses of indurated clay imbedded in the Sandstone ornbsp;Arkose deposit: “One is therefore disposed,” says White, “tonbsp;inquire whether the plants may not represent a somewhat oldernbsp;deposit than is that part of the Potomac formation in which theynbsp;are found.

Ho attempt is made in this Correlation paper to correlate the American divisions of the Cretaceous system with their European

1

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Dakota Plora, p. 20.

® Ibid. pp. 222 et seq. “ Table of distribution.” 3 Bull. tr.S. Geol. Surv. No. 82, 1891.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ibid. p. 90.

lïTTKODTJCTIOïr.

equivalents, because it is believed “that mucb 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 Palls of Missouri river in Montana,nbsp;quot;White points out that, although some of the plants may benbsp;identical, it is certain the waters in which the two formationsnbsp;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 plantbearing beds of Canada on the same horizon with the Europeannbsp;Wealden. Dawson* considers these beds as representatives of thenbsp;Drgonian or Neoeomian series; he compares them to the Komenbsp;beds of Greenland. There are, however, no typical Wealdennbsp;plants included in Dawson’s list; a comparison is made betweennbsp;Saluluria {Ginkgo) lepida, Heer, and certain leaves described bynbsp;Dunker from the Deister Wealden, but no reference is given tonbsp;indicate what particular leaves are referred to. The only plant-beds of America with which Dawson compares the Kootanie fossilsnbsp;are some in Maryland, in which Tyson discovered large Cycadeannbsp;stems and which he referred to a Wealden age.®

JAPAN.

Geyler® described and figured twelve species of plants from the valley of the Tetorigawa in Kaga,

' Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. No. 82, p. 208.

' Ihid. p. 252.

' Trans. N. York. Ac. Sci. vol. T. 1885-86, p. 135,

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Trans. E. Soc. Canada, vol. iii. 1885.

® Ihid. p, 18.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Palsontographica, vol. xsdv. p. 221.

•SXXU nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INIEODrCTION.

and in comparing this flora with those of other countries a resemblance is pointed out between the Japanese plants andnbsp;some species described by Heer from Siberia and Spitzhergen.

Nine years later Matajoro Yokoyama^{1 2} contributed a paper on the Jurassic plants of Kaga, Hida and Echizen, and adds a listnbsp;of species from these localities. At a later date® he gives anbsp;much fuller account of this exceedingly interesting flora ; andnbsp;a detailed comparison is instituted with floras of other countries,nbsp;the Jurassic floras of Siberia, Spitzhergen, the Yorkshire coast,nbsp;Eussia, China, India and Australia, also with the quot;Wealden ofnbsp;Europe and the infra-Liassic of Tongking.

A reference is made by Lester Ward® in his “Geographical Distribution of Fossil Plants ” to Yokoyama’s earlier paper, andnbsp;the suggestion offered that possibly these Japanese plants maynbsp;prove to be of Lower Cretaceous age, and that the reference bynbsp;Godfrey of the Kiushin leaf-beds to a Cretaceous horizon maynbsp;have been correct.^ The evidence afforded by the ferns is certainlynbsp;in favour of Ward’s suggestion.

In 1890 Nathorst® made an important contribution to our knowledge of Japanese palseobotany. The plants from some ofnbsp;the localities are compared principally to Wealden species, andnbsp;from other places there seems to be a mixture of Jurassic withnbsp;Wealden and Urgonian species.

Although the titles to the papers of Geyler and Yokoyama lead us to expect floras of distinctly Jurassic facies, we shallnbsp;have occasion to point out in the description of certain Englishnbsp;Wealden species a striking similarity, if not specific identity,nbsp;between them and some of the Japanese plants.

The following list includes the plants mentioned by Yokoyama and Nathorst:—

1

’ Bull. Geol. Soc. Japan, pt. B, vol. i. No. 1, 1886.

^ Joum. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 1.

® TJ.S. Geol. Snrv. Ann. Rep. No. 8, p. 789.

2

Quart. Joum. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxiv. 1878, p. 546.

^ Denksch. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. Ivii. 1890, p. 43.

INTROD'üGTIOÏf.

Thynopteru Murrayana^ Brong.

T, pnsoa^ Eicli.

Ts kagensis^ Tok.

D^cksania, gTctcilis.^ Hr.

D. ücutilohü^ ÏÏr., var.

cf. G-lehniana^ Hr. i). nephrocarpa^ Buüb.

Onychiopsia elongaUi (G-eyl,).

¦Adiantites Seerianm^ Tok.

A. KochibeaniiSj Tok.

A. lanceusy Tok.

Aaplenium Whitbienaey Brong.

A. argutulunif Hr.

A. distans, Hr.

Sphmapêarisy sy, =:dèM^ordia G'ópperti (Dunk.).

J^ecopterts exilü^ Phill.

E. Saportana, Hr.

T(sniopt€r{8 (?).

Maerotteniopterisy ef. Jtichihofmij Schenk.

^ngeriopteris,s^.^^^S. MantemiDxmY.)

S^quiseium ushimarenaey Yok.

Anomozamitesy sp.

The following are the species enumerated by Kathorst: Onyohiopsis elonyati$ (fiejh),nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;| ZycopoditeSy s])

CladophUbiSy sp.

Cf, ]!gt;lihsönia orüntatü. Hr. iT cf. Schaumburgenshy Dunk.

Zmniophyllum BucUanum (Ett.).

Z. Nautmnniy Nath.

BecopUrh Geyhrinnay Kath. =

phlehia Dunkeri (Schimp.), and (in part) Weichselia ManieUi [Bxmg.).

NEW ZEALAND.

Vroin some specimens of plants brougLt by Hocbstetter from the province of Auckland, between Waikato and Whaingarva,nbsp;Enger described and figured two species of ferns which benbsp;named Asplenium palmopteru { = Splwnopteris Pittoni, sp. nov.) and

1 ^Klukia exilia (Phill-)-

INTEODUCTIOX.

Polypodium lloohstetteri. 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 probablynbsp;of Wealden age.

A more critical and detailed comparison of the species mentioned in the above lists will he made after the descriptions of the English specimens have been completed. Very possibly somenbsp;of the plants which have been quoted as Jurassic in age maynbsp;have to be correlated eventually with the typical ’W’ealdennbsp;floras; but in this introductory review there have simply beennbsp;given those plant lists which include species of undoubtednbsp;Wealden affinities, or, in other words, of which Wealden floralnbsp;elements form a more or less conspicuous part. The plantsnbsp;described by Bartholni'' from Bornholm are spoken of as Jurassicnbsp;in age, but it seems not at all unlikely that the evidence willnbsp;be found to be rather in favour of a Lower Cretaceousnbsp;horizon. It may he found that Wealden plant beds are alsonbsp;represented in Sweden; at least one characteristic species,nbsp;WeicJiselia Mantelli (Brong.), has been recorded from Swedishnbsp;strata.

There are other records of plants to which allusion might he made as including at least one Wealden species, hut it maynbsp;suffice to mention two instances. In a notice by Tate in thenbsp;Journal of the Geological Society for 1867 there is a plantnbsp;figured under the name Sphempteris antipodum, Tate,^ from thenbsp;Geelhoutboon beds in the Uitenhage series (Lower Cretaceous)nbsp;of South Africa. This fossil is compared by the author of thenbsp;species to Sphempteris Jugleri, Ett., but there appears to be anbsp;much closer resemblance to Onychiopsis (^Sphempteris) Mantellinbsp;(Brong.), and, indeed, I have decided to include Tate’s fragmentnbsp;under this characteristic Wealden species.^

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Eeise Pregatte Novara, vol. i. Abth. ii. p. 1.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bot. Tid. Bot. For. Kjovenhavn, vol. xviii. Heft i. 1892, p. 12.

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. 1867, p. 146.

‘ p. 44.

XXXV

INTEODTJCTIOir.

Prom the Cretaceous flora of Niederschiiua in Saxony, t^o hardt' has recently recorded this same species, Sphenoptnbsp;Manielli, Brong., hut unfortunately he does not give figures

any of the specimens. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;_nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;• •

No mention has heen made of those countries or distnc which fossiliferous strata have been described containinj, ^ ynbsp;animal fossils, hut which are probably homotaxial with typmnbsp;Wealden strata. The supposed quot;Wealden rocks of Spain descnnbsp;hy Linares'* and the strata, presumably of the samenbsp;Columbia, South America, described by Major Plant, anbsp;instances of such fresh-water beds.

In the Second Part of this Catalogue it is intended to co plete the description of the English Wealden plants. We snbsp;then he in a much better position to deal with such generanbsp;questions as (i) the distribution of quot;Wealden plants throut,hounbsp;the world; (ii) the value of such plants as evidence of geologinbsp;age; (iii) the quot;Wealden climate; (iv) the relation of the Weal ennbsp;flora to the vegetation of earlier and later periods.

‘ Abh. Isis. Dresden, 1891, p. 79.

^ Ann. Soc. Espafi. Hiat. Nat. vol. vii. 1878, p. 87.

^ Proc. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester, toI. xvi. 1877, p. 60.

Table showing the Geographical Range of those species of Pteridopliyta which are described in Part I. The species peculiar to England are not included in the table.

INTEOBUCTIOÏT.

List of Thailobhyta, Chaeophyta, Betophtta, and Pteeidoehyta described in the present volume, with the geological horizon,nbsp;locality and local of the type specimens.

t SPECIES CONPINEK TO ENOLANB.

THALLOPHTTA.

t yilgités valdensis^ sp. nov., Pairlight Clays, Eccleshourne. (British Museum.) tnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;eatenelloides^ sp. uov., Fairlight Clays, EccleshourEe. (British Museum.)

CHAEOPHYTA.

t Chara Kmwltoni, sp. uov., Fairlight Clays, Cliff End, near Hastings. (British Museum.)

BKTOPHYTA.

t Manhantites Zeilleri, sp. nov., Fairlight Clays, Eccleshoume. (British Museum.)

PLANTAE INCEHTJE SEDIS.

Specimen A. Fairlight Clays. (British Museum.) Specimen B. Fairlight Clays. (British Museum.)

PTEBIDOPHYTA.

INTEOBTJCIIOX.

PTERIDOPHYTA—continued,.

NOTES ON THE

COLLECTIOÏÏS EEFEERED TO IN EAET I.

Beckles Coll.—Some good specimens of Bquisetites and Weichselia from this Collection.

Davison Coll.—Several examples of Wealden plants from the neighbourhood of Hastings.

Mantell CoM.—This Collection includes various plants from Tilgate Forest and other localities.

Rufford CoU.—Tha majority of the specimens described in this Catalogue were collected by Mr. Eufford from Wealdennbsp;strata at Ecolesbourne and other localities near Hastings.nbsp;With the exception of a few specimens presented by Mr.nbsp;Eufford to the Museum in 1885, most of the plants havenbsp;been acquired by purchase since that date.

In addition to the specimens contained in the above collections are a few which were presented by Mrs. Burnett and Mr.

Peyton.

LIST OF WOODCUTS.

5.

6.

7. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Matonidiwm Gopperti (Ett.) .......

8. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;»nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;I)nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.......

9. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Gladophlebis Alberisii (Dunk.).......

10. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Fittoni,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;sp.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nov........

11- nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;„nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.. .......

Weichselia nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantelli (Brong.)........120

„ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,, ........120

14. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Teeniopteris Beyrichii (Schenk), var. superha

15. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Toeniopteris Dawsoni, sp. nov........

16. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Diotyophyllum Roemeri, Schenk.......

17.

WEALDEN PLANTS.

Group THALLOPHYTA.

lieterogeneous group of plants, many of which consist of a single cell, or of a thallns without any external differentiationnbsp;into stem and leaf structures. Some of the higher members have,nbsp;on the other hand, well-defined external and internal differentiation. The group is distinguished from the higher plants bynbsp;the absence of true roots and vascular (conducting) tissue. Innbsp;this respect it agrees with the BryopJiyta; but in the latter thenbsp;division of the vegetative body into stem and leaf structures isnbsp;more pronounced, and the method of sexual reproduction andnbsp;alternation of generations in the life-cycle are characters whichnbsp;separate the two groups.

Class ALG.33.

Plants provided with chlorophyll, and therefore capable of decomposing carbonic acid gas, assimilating the carbon and giving off oxygen, under the influence of sunlight. The vegetative bodynbsp;occurs in all forms, from that of a single cell to a complicatednbsp;multicellular structure, made up of assimilating, conducting, protective, and other tissues.

The custom of naming the innumerable markings or impressions which constitute many of the so-called fossil Algx by the samenbsp;generic titles as are applied to recent seaweeds is to be stronglynbsp;deprecated. Several observers have furnished ample proof of thenbsp;exceedingly small value to be attached to the determinations ofnbsp;“algal” impressions, and have thus given a wholesome check tonbsp;the indiscriminate naming of these most doubtful fossils. Thenbsp;application of such terms as Caulerpites, Chonih'ites, etc., tonbsp;markings on stone which have a greater or less resemblance tonbsp;the recent genera Caulerpa, Chondria or Chond/rus, is very likelynbsp;to lead us astray, and to be especially misleading to those whonbsp;are apt to draw conclusions as to the past history of living generanbsp;from the occurrence of their names in fossil lists. As an instance

Aiö^.

of the misuse of one of the names, Caulerpites, the remarks of Murray on fossil Caulerpas are worthy of repetition. In his recentnbsp;paper on an example of this genus from the Kimeridge clay henbsp;says'—“I have examined nearly every species known to science

of those [Caulerpa sp.) at present existing......of all the

described fossil Gaulerpce or Caulerpites of which I have seen specimens and figures, there is not one which might not withnbsp;equal propriety he assigned a place elsewhere within or withoutnbsp;the vegetable kingdom.” In looking at the specimens of Murray’snbsp;new species, Caulerpa Carruthersii, one easily recognises thenbsp;resemblance to the recent genus, and it is difficult to imagine tonbsp;what other source such impressions could be referred. It isnbsp;somewhat surprising, however, to find what deep and well-definednbsp;depressions have been left in the rook 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 rocknbsp;surfaces ; the same general habit of thallus being found in severalnbsp;recent genera, and indeed in different families. Unless, therefore,nbsp;we are dealing with examples where the fossil clearly showsnbsp;a habit strikingly similar in form to that of a well-marked andnbsp;distinct recent genus, or with specimens exhibiting a well-preservednbsp;internal structure, or clear indications of characteristic reproductivenbsp;organs, by making use of recent generic names we are rathernbsp;hindering than advancing the knowledge of fossil phycology. Uornbsp;these reasons it is safer to be content with merely pointing outnbsp;such living genera as approach most nearly in habit the algal-like impressions, and not commit ourselves to a doubtful andnbsp;misleading affinity by referring the fossil forms to particular generanbsp;or families.

quot;With a view to having some general term which may serve as a provisional generic name for fossils, which in all probability comenbsp;under the head of Alga, but which it is impossible with anynbsp;degree of certainty to refer to a definite recent type, I proposenbsp;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.nbsp;In the later parts of the “Mora der Vorwelt ” those “algal”

' Phycol. Mem. pt. i. 1892, p. 13. * Petrefactenkunde, p. 38.

AtGiE.

remains, originally mentioned as species of the genus Algacites, are referred to various recent genera to which some resemblance innbsp;extenial form is considered to exist. The name AlgacUes has sincenbsp;heen replaced hy other terms, and appears to he no longer usednbsp;as a general designation of fossil AlgcB of doubtful affinity. Therenbsp;is another term, Fucoides, which has also heen used hy Sternbergnbsp;S'ttd many other palseobotanists in an equally wide sense, hut suchnbsp;^ name naturally suggests a certain resemblance to the recentnbsp;genus Fucus, and is thus unsuitable if used in a more comprehensive sense.

This suggestion as to the use of a provisional and wide geneiic designation, such as Algites, may be considered a retrogressivenbsp;step and likely to lessen our accurate knowledge of fossil Algm.

If the data were generally adequate, and afforded sufficient indication of botanic affinity, any such term would be superfiuous.nbsp;quot;When we consider how exceptional it is to find ourselves in anbsp;position to make definite statements, founded on satisfactorynbsp;evidence, as to the family of Algol in which fossil forms should benbsp;placed, it must be admitted that we are lessening the possibilitiesnbsp;of error by the return to more general and less definite terms.

Botanists would naturally prefer to pass over such markings or casts which are too imperfect to admit of identification j but innbsp;spite of their apparent worthlessness from a hotanioal point of view,nbsp;they may be of service to the geologist, and indeed the mostnbsp;fragmentary material may become important when more perfectnbsp;specimens have heen discovered. Thus it is better to place onnbsp;record even those exceedingly doubtful fossils, and to adopt anbsp;provisional name in the hope that future discoveries may thrownbsp;more light upon family or generic affinity. Generic names, suchnbsp;as Sphenopteris, Pecopteris, etc., of Brongniart have served a mostnbsp;¦useful purpose, and by degrees these are being replaced by morenbsp;definite botanical titles as fertile specimens are discovered, and sonbsp;afford clues as to natural affinity. As another instance of anbsp;convenient term we may mention Rachiopteris, which quot;Williamsonnbsp;has applied to those fragments of fern petioles which it is notnbsp;possible to refer to particular genera.

4 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ALGITES.

Genus ALGITES, gen. nov.

A generic term for those fossils which in all probability belong to the class Algm, but which, by reason of the absence ofnbsp;reproductive organs, internal structure, or characters of a trustworthy nature in the determination of affinity, cannot he referrednbsp;with any degree of certainty to a particular recent genus ornbsp;family.

1.—Algites valdensis, gen. et sp. nov.

Type. Carbonaceous impression from Ecclesboume, near Hastings (Fairlight clay). British Museum. PI. I. Fig. 1. Eegisterednbsp;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, suchnbsp;as Chondrus, Zonaria, Dictyota, Rhodymenia, Nitophyllum, andnbsp;others. Chondrus crispus (L.), Stacth., seems the most likelynbsp;species among recent forms with which to compare the quot;Wealdennbsp;impressions; its more resistant fronds appear better adapted fornbsp;preservation than the more delicate structures of Rhodymenia ornbsp;Zonaria. So far as habit is concerned there is indeed a strikingnbsp;resemblance between Algites valdensis and Nitophyllum Bonnemaisoninbsp;(Lyngb.)' as figured by Harvey ; but an equally strong resemblancenbsp;may be traced on comparing the fossil specimens with examplesnbsp;of other recent genera. The extreme variability of Chondrusnbsp;crispus is well known, and, as Mr. Murray pointed out to me, thenbsp;broader type of thallus, such as we have in Algites valdensis, isnbsp;indicative of quiet pools or gently flowing water, and in markednbsp;contrast to the narrow filiform branches of specimens growing innbsp;swiftly running currents. This difference of habit, and its closenbsp;connection with the mode of life, is worth noting with referencenbsp;to fossil forms, although in the present instance it would hardlynbsp;be admissible to draw any conclusions from the breadth of thenbsp;thallus branches when we are in doubt as to generic relationship.

¦ Harvey, pi. xxiii. fig. 2.

algiies.

The genus Chondrites is suggestive of supposed ^

Chondria, hut the definition given by Brongniar s ,

¦was intended for the reception of forms wit oy m n nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

In Schimper’s “Traité de Paléontologie” the genus is defined as comprising fossils with _ cylindricalnbsp;repeatedly dichotomising, and possessing cnbsp;Chondria and Fureellaria among living algas. o® ^„Mt-ddes anbsp;^vith flattened fronds are referred to the genusnbsp;name previously used by Sternberg as Spha-rococci es,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

by him as followsErons subcoriacea, plana dichotoma

pinnata aut filiformis.” nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;_nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;norideee, and considerably

Schimper includes this genus in the x

extends Sternberg’s definition. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;. conform

th.” .ped»». nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;™t™. «. “•««

exactly to any oi these definitions, and that sue extent', associated with definite genera ofnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^weeds,

better to make use of a wider designation, such as ƒ i^p„o2oie Th.,e ™ ..m. lew fo.dl. p™n.l,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Me™»

and Tertiary rocks, to wkiek Algttea mlihnm sko

quot;rtr-ewr*.

d..od« a spoot™, troa. Lip.d. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^“X/»;tr a.d

Similar to the Wealden species, but ditteis

longer branches. Heer’s figure of Gyrophylhtes

in the Eoss. fi. Helvet,^ shows an analogous type o P ’

the generic name which he adopts was institute y

1841 tor a Crotoeoo.s fosdl wMei re»mWe. the S»»

much more strongly than the flattened branching a g nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Vrigt

the present speciins agree. Erom the Jurassic rooks

Yorkshire Leckenhy’ has described a supposed a ga,

erectus, which slightly resembles Algites nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;parts

presence of a midrib and tbe delicate nature of tb

of tbe branches are much more suggestive of HepaticafimiUe^

' Tableau, p. 9. See also Prodrome, p. 20, ^bere tbe older name Gigaetinim is defined.

Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 168.

’ Flor. Vorwelt, fasc. vii. p. 28.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Contrib. FI. foss. Liguria, vol. i. Tav. B, p- H-

f FI. xlv. fig. 1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;„„

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Nova Acta Ac. Gees. Leop.-Car. vol. xix. supp. n. P- •

Quart. Jouru. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 71, pl-

The Wealden fossils previously classed as Algm are not of such importance as to require serious attention. Bunker’s Conferviles fissus''-is definitely stated by Schenk,® after a careful examination of the type specimen, to be a rachis fragment of Onychiopsis {fiphenopteris')nbsp;Mantelli (Brong.). The curious marking figured by Heer® fromnbsp;Almargem in Portugal as Tmnidium lusitanicum, Hr., has littlenbsp;claim to be accepted as a fossil plant, so far at least as it is possiblenbsp;to judge from the plate. Ettingshausen ^ figures three speciesnbsp;from the Wealden of Austria, Sp'hmrococoites chondrimformis, Ett.,nbsp;Confervites setaceus, Ett., and Bargassites Partschii, Ett., but thesenbsp;do not afford trustworthy evidence as to the existence of anynbsp;particular family of Algce.

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 anbsp;supposed fresh-water rock ; this, however, does not appear to me atnbsp;all a fatal objection. Marine algm are abundant enough at anbsp;river’s mouth, and, indeed, extend some distance from the placenbsp;where the fresh water flows into the sea. In the delta deposits ofnbsp;the Wealden rivers there might easily be embedded the fronds ofnbsp;shallow-water seaweeds.

There is a striking resemblance, too close to be entirely ignored, between some forms of the liverwort Rehoulia 'hemisphairica (L.),nbsp;Eadd., and the fossil which I have described as an alga.

V. 2857. PI. I. Pigs. 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 ofnbsp;the branches are in some cases more or less torn, but appear tonbsp;have originally terminated bluntly. Fragments of Algites catenel-loides, sp. nov., scattered over the rock surface, as small branchednbsp;structures.

In addition to the species already mentioned, cf. Caulerpa arcuntapquot; Schimp., from the Flysch. Hear Hastings.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bechles Coll.

V. 2857fl!. The reverse piece of the previous specimen.

' Wealdenbildung, p. 1, pi. i. fig I.

® Palaoontographica, vol. xix. p. 208.

® Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, pi. xx.

^ Abb. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i. Abth. iii. No. 2, pi. iii. figs. 1-3 and 12. ® Trait, pal. vég. Atlas, pi. iii. fig, 6.

algiies.

V. 28575. Ia tiiese specimens some oi apparently perfect and blunt terminations.nbsp;catenelloides. Near Hastings.

V. 2857r. Portions of three specimens with the branching habit

clearly seen. Traces of A. catenelloides. Near Hastings.

Beckles Coll.

2.—Algites catenelloides, gen. et sp. nov.

Type. Small carbonaceous fragments on the same piece of root ¦with the type specimen of A. mldenm, British Museum. V. 285 .

Ï1. I. Figs. 1 and 2.

Small carbonaceous impressions of an apparently dichotomous y branched thallus ; the branches show indistinct signs of constrictions,nbsp;suggesting a jointed structure, as in Catenella.

These small branched fragments, which show in places what appear to he elliptical joints, as represented in PL I. Fig. 2a, arenbsp;closely associated with the specimens of the previous species. I amnbsp;indebted to Miss Barton for the suggestion that Catenella, approachesnbsp;most closely in habit to these delicate impressions ; the form of thenbsp;thallus, hoth as regards the branching, and what appear to benbsp;elliptical members making up the branched axes, has a strikingnbsp;similarity in the fossil and recent specimens. Another fact ofnbsp;importance is the frequent association of Chondrus erispus andnbsp;Catenella on our coasts at the present day. This occurrence, innbsp;such close proximity, of two fossil forms, whose external form isnbsp;in close agreement with two recent genera, is of some value asnbsp;confirmatory evidence in the question of botanic afhnity. It must,nbsp;at the same time, he candidly admitted that no great importancenbsp;ought to he attached to identifications or comparisons based on merenbsp;impressions of external form.

Vast numbers of impressions, animal trails and markings, which owe their origin to many and exceedingly diverse causes, have beennbsp;assigned to that group of plants which has come to be regardednbsp;as the receptacle for all doubtful specimens which often affordnbsp;little or no evidence of any vegetable nature whatsoever. Thenbsp;result of this has been to intensify that spirit of scepticism whichnbsp;ought always to influeuee the conduct of palaeohotanists. Therenbsp;is, on the other hand, the danger of allowing ourselves to go too

ALQITES.

far, and to be unduly prejudiced by such, extreme expressions of opinion as those of Hathorst and his followers. In the presentnbsp;instance I do not wish to make a definite assertion that these twonbsp;species of Wealden fossils are undoubtedly fragments of Chondrusnbsp;and Catenella, but merely indicate such points of agreement asnbsp;appear to exist.

These pieces of Algites catenelloides, Mr. Murray reminds me, may also be compared to small Laurencias.

V. 2857. PI. I. Figs. 1 and 2. Several pieces of the branched thallus close to the specimens of Algites valdensis.

V. 2857i and V. 2857^. A few fragments associated with A. valdensis on the same piece of rock. Near Hastings.

Heckles Coll.

CHiKACM-

Group CHAEOPHYTA, Migula.

Family CHABACEJS.

The Charaoece or Stoneworts possess certain characte ’ structural and biological, wliicli denote a consi era enbsp;in organization beyond the less complex Tha op y a.nbsp;other hand there are sufiioient difierences between enbsp;Bryophyta to exclude them from that group.

Migula, who has recently written an nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;adopt a

Characece for Eahenhorst’s “Kryptogamen r ’ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;4=rvlntpd

new class division, Charophyta, we shall best represen nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Tiiace

position of these plants, and recognize that they occupy between the Thallophyta and the Bryophyia.

Genus CHARA, Taillant. L.

[Linn. Hist. Acad. Gen. Hant, 1737, p. 326.1 [Vaillant, Hist. Ac. K. Sci. Paris, 1719.]

Vaillant^ was the first to apply this generic term to the widely-spread Stoneworts; he enumerates nine species m an article published in 1719. The “fruits” of Chara when first discoverednbsp;in Tertiary rocks of the Paris basin were described by Lamarcknbsp;under the name Gyrogonites, and not recognized as plant remains,nbsp;la 1812 Leman^{1 2} contributed a “note snr la Gyrogomte,” and

pointed ont the real nature of LamarcVs fossils.

It is convenient to apply the name Chara to those fossil remains which in all probability belong to the Characem. The material

1

’ Vo), V. p. 93.

® Hist. Ac. E, Sci. 1719, p. 17, pi. Hi.

’ Ann. Mas. Hist. Nat. vol. ix. pi. xv. fig. 7 and vol. xv, pi. xxüi. fig. 12.

2

Nout. Bull, Sci. Paris, vol. iii. Ann. 5, No. 58, p. 108.

In ZittePs “ Handbuch der Palaeontologie,” Abtli. ii. p- 43, the reference to Leman's paper is given as the “ Annales” (vol. xv.) instead of Nonv. Bull.

CHAKA.

which usually supplies the evideuce for the existence of these plants in rocks of various ages, is too imperfect to enable us tonbsp;decide accurately whether the fragments should be referred tonbsp;Chara, Nitella, or other genera of Characece,

In view of this difficulty it is better, therefore, to describe all the Characeous “fruits” by the term Chara, if we regard thenbsp;generic name, when applied to fossils, rather in the sense of anbsp;representative of a family than of the genus Chara as defined innbsp;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 Muschelkalknbsp;age from Moscow; but in no case have I been able to discover anbsp;reference to the author who first noted this occurrence. It is bynbsp;no means improbable that we must go much farther back in thenbsp;geologic series to find the earliest traces of Chara “fruits.” Innbsp;a paper in the American Journal of Science for 1889, Knowlton^nbsp;gives three figures of some “ problematic organisms ” which it isnbsp;difficult to believe can be anything but Chara oogonia. They arenbsp;described as minute spirally-grooved bodies 1'50 mm.—1-80 mm.nbsp;long, and 1'70 mm. broad, with a small aperture at one end; thesenbsp;bodies occur in large numbers in Lower Devonian-Carboniferousnbsp;sandstones, and were mentioned in 1873 by Meek,^ who spoke ofnbsp;them as showing all the external characters of Chara. Knowltonnbsp;recognizes the strong likeness to this genus, but quotes variousnbsp;opinions which throw a good deal of doubt on the plant-nature ofnbsp;these small fossils. One objection is that the fossil bodies have onnbsp;their surface the marks of more than five cells, the number makingnbsp;up the envelope of recent Chara oospores; and in the living formsnbsp;these spirally-placed cells are twisted to the left, but in the fossilsnbsp;to the right ; this, however, Knowlton suggests is “ no vitalnbsp;objection to the supposition that this might have been an archaicnbsp;or original type from which the more modern forms havenbsp;developed.” ®

Other arguments against their Characeous affinities are (i) the

’ I 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.nbsp;xxxvii. p. 202.

Eeport Geol. Surv. Ohio, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 219.

* Loc. eit. p. 204.

11

CHAKi.

large numbers uniformly scattered nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;considerable

(ii) tbeir occurrence in strata formed m

d,6ptli. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^ for

The generic name Cdlcisphmra was propose y nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;xocks m

certain small bodies common in CarboniferoM^ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;annlied to

tbe neighbourhood of lloel, Hortb quot;Wales ; nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;a esi'^nation

the American fossils by Knowlton .vith the specrfic dear,

C. Lemoni, Knowl. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-what

From the same geological horizon Dawson^ has he regarded as a foraminiferal species,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;belong to the

JEriana, Daws., and these, Brady rf nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Dawson’s figures

same group as the forms figured by Kuo nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;of Kno-wlton.

are not nearly so suggestive of nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;¦ v 3 ^ ignorance

Since Da-wson named these Devonian fossi s, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;foraminiferal

apparently of previous descriptions, institute a ^ Carboniferous genus, Moellerina, for tbeir reception. From enbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;form.

Limestone of Gloucestershire Wethered^{1 2} has reoor e which he places in Williamson’s genusnbsp;belief that it is of a Protozoan nature. Enou finbsp;show the possibility of our having to gonbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ucvinp- seen

for the earliest specimens of Chara. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pointed

Knowlton’s material, and being a-ware nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;figured

out by experienced specialists, it must be a nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ftuits :

specimens exhibit a very marhed resemblance ^ ^^.gg^piance as the reasons brought forward against aooep mg ^ ^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;number

p.- d nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;d, - .pp... ry

of enveloping cells need not be regarded

and a similar occurrence of large number nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-r, • f sVi water

«trix „5 b, „ted i. tbe e..e of the P.» B.m “;™“ rocks of Eocene age. In most cases the plants arenbsp;the so-called “fruits,” which are simply the oosporesnbsp;the spirally arranged cells of the envelope, or, notnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;d

without the encasing cells. Remains of the vegetative g rare, and such as have been described in a fossil s a e arnbsp;or no interest from a botanical point of view.

1

^ Phil. Trans, 1880, p. 521.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Canad. Kat. n.s. vol. x. p. 1.

® Geol. Mag. 1886, u.s. Deo. 3, vol. iii. p. 374.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Quart. Journ. Geol. Soo. vol. xliv. Proc. p. 91.

CHAEA.

In rocks of the Jurassic system several species have heen discovered. Saporta,' in his important oontrihutions to the Jurassic botany of France, institutes a new species, Chara Bleicheri, fromnbsp;Oxfordian rocks at Cajase in the Department Lot.

Heer ^ named a species, Chara Jaccardi, Hr., from the Purheckian of Villers-le-lac and other localities in the Canton Heuchatel; thisnbsp;species is also recorded by Saporta,^ on the authority of Giradot,nbsp;from the same geological horizon in the neighbourhood of Pontnbsp;de la Choux. Another species, Chara Maillardi, Sap., has recentlynbsp;been described from this district by Saporta,^ hut his figures shownbsp;the spiral markings of the encasing cells almost longitudinallynbsp;placed, and, indeed, the drawings are by no means convincing asnbsp;regards botanic affinity.

Heer’s species, Chara Jaceardi, Hr., is quoted by Schenk^{1 2} from beds which may he of Wealden age, at Lode in the Cantonnbsp;Heuenhurg. In Britain we have a reference by Phillips² to thenbsp;oocnrrence of Chara in the “Upper part of the Wealden deposits”nbsp;of Swanage Bay, Isle of Purbeck; the same genus is includednbsp;in the list of Isle of Wight fossils in Bristow’s Memoir’ on thenbsp;Geology of that island, from a locality between Brixton andnbsp;Atherfield.

So far as I am able to discoyer, no specific name has been applied to these English Mesozoic Charas. In the Museum of Practicalnbsp;Geology, Jermyn Street, there is a specimen showing a number ofnbsp;hollow casts of the Isle of M’ight Charas; these should probably benbsp;included in the species Chara Enowltoni, sp. nov. A few of thenbsp;more clearly preserved casts show that there were about 10-12nbsp;almost horizontal lines on the surface of the oogonia. The castsnbsp;are somewhat longer and narrower than the impressions fromnbsp;Ecclesbourne, but this may be due to the fact that the latter havenbsp;been more crushed, and have, therefore, an apparently greaternbsp;breadth.

1

’ Pal. Fran(;. ser. ii. vol. i. p. 214, pi. ix. figs. 8 and 9.

® TJrwelt, 1879, p. 176.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pal. Frang. ser. ii. vol. i. p. 216, pi. ix. figs. 12 and 13.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ibid. ii. vol. iv. p. 499, pi. Ixxii bis.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;PaleeontograpMca, vol. xix. p. 204, pi. xxv. fig. 1.

® Quart. Journ. Geol. Soe. 1858, p. 46.

’ Mem. Geol. Surv. 1889, p. 258.

13

CHABA..

l.~Cliara Knowltoni, sp. nov.

Type. Imperfectly preserved oogoaia discovered by Mr. Rufford at Cliff End, near Hastings. British Museum. Registered number

V. 1070(i. 'Woodcut, Rig. 1.

Oogonia broadly oval in form, the largest specimens about -Sm. long and approximately the same breadth at the broadest part.nbsp;Surface marked with eleven or twelve ridges, arranged in thenbsp;form of a flattened spiral very little removed from the horizontal.

Jig. 1.—Oogonium of Cliara Knowltoni, sp. nov. (V. 1070»), x 30.

Each specimen is covered hy a thin and brittle layer of car bonaceous matter, and in all probability tbe ridged surface is thatnbsp;of the enveloping cells, the substance of which is left as a blacknbsp;film moulded on the ridged and farrowed surface of the oospore.

The examples on which this species is founded are confessedly meagre, and hardly such as to warrant the institution of annbsp;additional species. Such characters, however, as are availablenbsp;indicate very clearly marked differences from the 'Wealden speciesnbsp;previously described. It may, therefore, serve a useful purposenbsp;to designate the British specimens by a new name, provided tbenbsp;fact be kept in mind that the material hitherto found in thenbsp;English beds is not at all adequate for the purposes of thoroughnbsp;speoifio definition. 1 have ventured to name this species afternbsp;Mr. Knowlton, who has recently added to our knowledge ofnbsp;fossil Charas.

The present species differs from the other Mlealden form, ChOiVU Taccdrdi, in having many more surface ridges, and in itsnbsp;more globular and less elongated shape. The globular form may,nbsp;however, as previously suggested, be, to a certain extent, the resultnbsp;of flattening.

A specimen figured by Squinabol’ from Tertiary beds of Liguria, ^ Contrib. FI. loss. Liguria, vol, ii. p. 7, pi- sii. figs 1 and 2.

CHAEA,

and referred by him to Char a 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 ridgesnbsp;with Chara Kmwltoni, but differs in shape.

Among English Tertiary species there is a distinct similarity to a specimen of Chara medicaginula, figured by Lyell,^ showingnbsp;the “nut” enclosed in the “integument.” The inner partnbsp;(“nut”) has a close resemblance to the present species.

The common recent species Chara fcetida, A. Br., possesses oogonia not far removed in appearance from the Wealden type,nbsp;but, as Lyell points out in reference to Tertiary species, the fossilnbsp;oogonia are more globular than those of living British species.

V. 1070«. Woodcut, p. 13, Eig. 1.

Some of the oogonia are fairly well preserved and show the characteristic markings clearly. Near Hastings.

Presented hy P. Rufford, Esy., 1885.

V. 1070. Several oogonia scattered in the matrix. Near Hastings.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Presented ly P. Rufford, Esq., 1885.

V. 2282. A cluster of oogonia closely crowded together, with odd ones scattered about. The spherical form well shown, butnbsp;markings indistinct. Eoclesboume.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2808. Several specimens in an argillaceous matrix, some with the surface markings fairly clear. Ecoleshourne.

Rufford Coll.

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bot. Gazette, vol. xviii. p. 141.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Trans. Geol. Soo. ser. ii. vol. ii. 1826, p. 90, pi. xiii. fig. 3.

15

BETOPHXTA.

Group BEYOPHTTA (MUSCIYE^).

There is a well-marked and characteristic alternation of generations in the life-history of the members of this group; the Oophyte generation (moss plant) being the more conspicuous of the two.nbsp;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.nbsp;Scanty as the material is on which the geological history of thesenbsp;plants is founded, we are not justified in assuming that they arenbsp;Unrepresentedin pre-Tertiary times.^

The earliest representative of the Musoi to which reference need 1¹0 made is one which was described in the “ Comptes Rendnsnbsp;for 1885 2 hy Zeiller and Renault from the Coal-Measures ofnbsp;Oommentry; this species, Muscites polytricliaceus, has since beennbsp;figured by the same authors in their work on the Commentrynbsp;fossil flora.® As usually happens in the case of fossil mosses,nbsp;ffiere are no signs of a capsule. The figures of this carboniferousnbsp;®Pecies are certainly much more suggestive of the vegetative partsnbsp;of a moss than any other plant. M. Besoherelle suggested thenbsp;two recent genera, Polytrichum and RUzogonium, as the nearestnbsp;decent forms as regards the characters of the vegetative parts,nbsp;fu connection with Palseozoic mosses the comparison made hynbsp;^olms-Laubach is worth noting^; he compares Lycopoiites Maakiinbsp;f''oni the Coal-Measures of North America, and L. uncinatus, alsonbsp;°f Carboniferous age, to certain of the recent IIypnelt;e. Passingnbsp;on to the Mesozoic system, we have further evidence for thenbsp;existence of this group of plants, as Starkie Gardner has shownnbsp;lu his paper “On Mesozoic Angiosperms.”® He had occasion to

1

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bower. Annals Bot. vol. v. p. 130.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Vol. c. p. 660.

® FI. foss. Houill. Commentry, pi. xli. figs. 2-4.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Fossil Botany, p. 186.

® Geol. Mag. 1886, p. 203.

BETOPHYIA.

examine a specimen originally described and figured by Bnckman ‘ under the name Najadita, from the plant bed at the base of thenbsp;Lias, near Bristol; his inspection of this supposed monocotyledonnbsp;led him to the conclusion that Buckman’s plant was probablynbsp;closely allied to the common fresh-water moss Fontinalis. In thisnbsp;opinion he was supported by Messrs. Carruthers and Murray, ofnbsp;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 samenbsp;locality.

The argument advanced by Heer ^ in the “ Urwelt der Schweiz ” for the existence of Triassic mosses is well known. In describingnbsp;some Lias insects from the rooks of Sohamhelen, Heer notes thenbsp;absence of fossil fungi in these rocks, but goes on to say that theirnbsp;presence may be inferred from the occurrence of certain genera ofnbsp;beetles. The same kind of reasoning is made use of in the case ofnbsp;mosses; four species of Byrrhm, found in the Sohamhelen Lias,nbsp;are supposed to warrant the assumption that mosses were also innbsp;existence, because at the present day the nearest living allies ofnbsp;those Sohamhelen beetles derive their food from mosses. Suchnbsp;reasoning can hardly be accepted in the accumulation of reliablenbsp;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 Iluscitesnbsp;cretaceus'^\ the figure of the type specimen shows a very smallnbsp;and imperfect fragment. The plant fragments figured by Eoemer,‘nbsp;and described by him as Musettes imbricatus and M. falcifolius,nbsp;from the North German Wealden beds, are most probably piecesnbsp;of coniferous branches, and certainly of no value as records ofnbsp;Wealden mosses. The specimen figured by Bunker, from thenbsp;same district, as Musoites Sternbergianus, is in all probability anbsp;fragment of a coniferous branch. From the Tertiary rocks severalnbsp;authors have described species of Musettes, but in nearly all casesnbsp;the determinations are based solely on fragments of vegetative

' Quart. Joum. Geol. Soc. vol. vi. p. 413.

2 Urwelt, 1879, p. 99.

2 Denkschr. k. Ak. tViss. mat. nat. Cl. vol. xvii. p. 185, pi. i. fig. 6. ‘ Verstein. Ool. Geb. p. 10, pi. xvii. lig. 2.nbsp;s 'WeaUenbildung, p. 20, pi. vii. fig. 10.

HEPATIC^. 17

organs, and these alone are not often trustworthy guides; there is an exception in the case of Gymnodomum ferruginevm,^ figured hynbsp;Ludwig, where the capsule is preserved with portions of the moss-plant stem.

The palseobotany of the Hepaticce is no more satisfactory. Of Palseozoic liverworts there appear to be no records preserved.nbsp;¦A. single specimen of a plant with dichotomously lobed flat frondsnbsp;Las been described hy Fliche and Bleicher as a new species ofnbsp;^archantia,^ M. ooUthicus ; it was discovered in Lower Oolite rocks

the neighbourhood of Nancy. The authors of the species point out that such forked laminar structures may be referred to certainnbsp;lichens, algae or liverworts j in this case the latter class is the one

chosen.

In speaking of fossil algae reference was made to Fucoiies efectus, heck., from the Yorkshire Oolite, as being possibly a liverwort andnbsp;®ot an algal impression.

The Tertiary Hepatim are more satisfactory, notably some fi§nred hy Saporta ® from the Paris Basin showing distinct malenbsp;J'oceptades. From the Baltic Amber G0ppert‘ has determinednbsp;Various examples of the Bryophyta, and instituted the generic termnbsp;'^i*ngermannite% to denote the existence of certain supposednbsp;hepatics which resemble the Jungermatima rather than thenbsp;^O’Tchantia section.

Class HEPATIC^.

The vegetative dorsiventral body is in the form of a thalloid creeping structure (Thalloid Liverworts), or a creeping stem withnbsp;Ihin leaves which are always without a midrib (Foliose Liverworts). Protonema feebly developed.

Order MAE.CHANTIE.35.

Vegetative body of the thalloid type, with or without a midrib ; branches of the “ thallus ” more or less clearly forked.

' Pateontographica, rol. viii. p. 160, pi. Iviii. fig. 9.

“ Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy, sér. ii. vol. v. pp. 67, 68, fig. 1. ^ Mém. Soc. Geol. France, sér. ii. rol. viii. p. 289.

* Bernstein, p. 113.

C

MAECHANIITES.

Genus MARCHANTITES, Bronguiart.

[Tableau, p. 12.]

Vegetative body of laminar form, with apparently dichotomous branches, and agreeing in habit with the recent thalloid Jlepaticce,nbsp;as represented by the genus Marohantia.

Brongniart’s term Marchantites is, in the present instance, preferable to Marehantia; the latter would suggest a fossil which might reasonably be regarded as a species of the recent genus;nbsp;the former has a wider meaning, and, if used in the broad sensenbsp;indicated in the above definition, would refer rather to a typenbsp;of vegetative body than to a special genus.

1.—Marchantites Zeilleri, sp. nov.

Type. Specimen in the British Museum. V. 2330. Discovered by Mr. Euflord. PI. I. Pig. 3.

“Frond” repeatedly divided by forked branching, apparently dichotomous. Average breadth about 3mm.; the branches have anbsp;distinct and fairly broad midrib, and on either side of the centralnbsp;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 ofnbsp;moss, and whose labours in palseobotany have done so much tonbsp;establish the subject on a more scientific foundation.

In habit and size this species very closely resembles Marehantia Chenopoda, Linn., from tropical America. No other genus, so farnbsp;as resemblance in habit is concerned, agrees so nearly with thenbsp;Wealden form as Marehantia, but without trace of either male ornbsp;female receptacle, or other aids to identification, no great stressnbsp;should be laid on the comparison. There is the same branchingnbsp;habit and distinct midrib in Leckenby’s species, Fuooides erectus.'nbsp;In both the midrib is clearly shown by the much darker colour ofnbsp;the median portion of the thalloid impressions; the thinner lateralnbsp;parts in the present species appear almost like brown stains on thenbsp;matrix. A somewhat similar form, but without any strikingnbsp;resemblance, and, indeed, of much smaller size, is figured by Debey

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 74, pi. xi. :

INCEET^ SEDIS.

and Ettingshansen, under the name Malyaerites gracilis,^ from the Cretaceous of Aachen and Maestricht. This so-called alga mightnbsp;also bo compared to a fragment of a filmy fern frond.

V. 2330. PI. I. Pig. 3.

This specimen shows very clearly the hahit of the plant, and especially the marked contrast between the sharply defined blacknbsp;midrib and the light brown impressions of the more delicate lateralnbsp;portions. Ecelesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2330(?. Practically identical with V. 2330. Ecelesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2334. Several smaller pieces of the branched thalloid body. the same slab of ironstone are fragments of Sphenopterisnbsp;Fontainei, sp. nov. Ecelesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

PLANTS INCERT^ SEDIS.

In PI. I. Pigs. 7 and 8, two specimens are represented which is difficult to refer, with any degree of certainty, to definitenbsp;§enera, but which may be briefly described here as possiblynbsp;^Êferable to the Rteriamp;ophyta.

Specimen A. PL I. Pig. 7. V. 2370.

Ecelesbourne. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

The figure shows a clearly preserved and sharply cut black ^Iructure projecting in a button-like form from the rook matrix.nbsp;In the centre is a distinct depression, and from this extendnbsp;numerous radiating ridges which curve downward at the periphery ;nbsp;these ridges appear to be the projecting midribs of leaf-segments,nbsp;^hich terminate acutely, and are fused together laterally in thenbsp;Inrm of a circular sheath. I am inclined to regard the specimennbsp;an Equisetaoeous leaf-sheath, but prefer to leave it unnamednbsp;in the hope of fresh discoveries affording more definite evidencenbsp;ns to its botanical position.

‘ Denksebr. k. Ak. Wiss. matb.-nat. Cl. vol. xvi. 1859, p. 61, pi. i.'-figs. 1-2.

IlfCEEM SEBIS.

A very similar fossil has been figured by Pontaine from the Potomac beds of Baltimore as quot; an undetermined plant ”;' hisnbsp;specimen is smaller, but very similar in form; it shows a circularnbsp;orifice in the centre, a character not noticed in the Englishnbsp;example. The Potomac fossil is described as more like a leaf-sheath of Equiietum than anything else. Ettingshausen ^ hasnbsp;figured a small object from the Wealden of Zöbing, described asnbsp;a “ Patellenahnliches Gebilde,” which may be compared to ournbsp;figured specimen. In the genus Pkylïotheoa there is a certainnbsp;amount of resemblance to the present specimen in the form ofnbsp;the leaf-sheaths. Zigno’s figures of Phyllotheca equisetiformisy Zig.,^nbsp;represent stems with nodes clasped by leaf-sheaths deeply dividednbsp;into acute and slightly incurved segments. In the case of anbsp;detached leaf we should expect, however, to have a circularnbsp;structure with a central aperture. In a leaf-sheath of Phyllotheca SchtschurarosUiy Schmal.,‘ from the Eussian Jurassic rocks,nbsp;there is also a certain similarity as regards size and general form.

Specimen B. PI. I. Eigs. 8 and 9. V. 2328.

Ecclesbourne. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

This specimen consists of a repeatedly branched structure bearing small and closely arranged leaves ; the axes of the branches are distinguished in several places by the presence of a whitenbsp;mineralization substance in the form of fine longitudinal lines,nbsp;suggestive of a slender and woody central cylinder; the generalnbsp;habit is somewhat stiff; length 3 cm.

Mr. Carruthers, to whom I showed the specimen, recognized a resemblance to the sporangiferous branches of some of the Lycopodium Phlegmaria group,® and pointed out the possibility that thenbsp;small carbonaceous patches shown in Eig. 9 in the axis of the left-hand leaves may be the remains of sporangia. In addition to thesenbsp;black patches the enlarged piece of a branch (Pig. 9) shows thenbsp;pointed and slightly falcate leaves, which appear to occur in two

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Potomac Flora, p. 276, pi. clxxiii. figs. 11 and 11a.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Abh. k.-k. geol. Eeichs. vol. i. Abth. ill. Ifo. 2, p. 32, pi. ill. fig. 20.

® Flor. foss. Oolit. vol. i. p. 60, pi. viii. fig. 6a, etc.

^ Schmalhansen. Mém. Ac. Imp. St. Pétersbonrg, sér. vil. vol. xxvii. Ho. 4; 1879, pl. vi. üg. 3.

, 5 Baker. Fern-allies, p. 19.

IHCEBT^{1 2} SEBIS.

alternating rows. There is certainly a marked resemblance between some specimens of fertile branches in members of thenbsp;lycopodium Phlegmaria group and the Wealden fragment; but thenbsp;nature of the fossil renders it unwise to give expression to thisnbsp;resemblance by adopting the name Lycopodites.

The occurrence of this genus in Wealden rocks has previously been hinted by Mantell'; he includes f Lycopodites in a list ofnbsp;fossil plants from Tilgate Forest.

Nathorst² figures and describes a specimen as “undoubtedly b'ycopodiaceous,” from a Japanese locality which has afforded anbsp;flora with a distinct Wealden facies. In Saporta’s recent list ofnbsp;plants from the Wealden of Portugal ® there are included certainnbsp;species of Lycopodiaceous plants.

At first sight the specimen suggests, as Mr. Kufford pointed out, a moss-like plant. So far as I have been able to determine therenbsp;^re no species of true mosses which show any close similarity innbsp;babit to the fossil, but in the Sepaticm there are some forms innbsp;''rhioh the resemblance is distinctly close, e.g. the genus Porella.

A strong argument, however, against adopting such a generic term as Jungermannites is the indication of a woody axis, to whichnbsp;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 Coniferce. Cf.nbsp;Ï1. I. Pig. 8, with Heer’s figures of TFiddrmgtonites Reichii (Ett.) ²nbsp;and Juniperus maeilenta (Hr.),® both from the Cretaceous ofnbsp;Greenland; also Lesquereux’s figure of Olyptostrohus gracillinus,^nbsp;b'Osqx., another Cretaceous conifer.

1

’ Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. iii. 1835, p. 213.

^ Denksctr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. CL vol. Ivii. 1890, p. 50, pL n. tig. • ® Compt. Bend. vol. exiii. 1891, p. 249.

2

Bl. foss. Arct. vol. vii. 1883, pi. Hi. fig- 5-® Ibid. vol. vi. 1882, pi. xxxv. fig. 10.

® Hep. B.S. Geol. Surv. vol. vi. 1874, pi. i. fig- H-

EQtriSETACEa:.

Group PTERIDOPHYTA. (VASCULAR CRYPTOGAMS.)

Plants with a highly organized sporophyte generation, possessing true vascular (conducting) tissue, and true roots.

With the exception of Isoetes, Botrychium, HelmintJiostachys, and, according to recent observations, Equisetum,^ there is nonbsp;secondary thickening in the vegetative structures of the livingnbsp;genera included in this group. Among fossil genera secondarynbsp;thickening appears to have been common.

The Pleridophyta differ from the Bryophyta in the greater advance in physiological division of labour as expressed in the more complete differentiation of tissues. The presence of a true vascularnbsp;system and the possession of true roots at once separate thenbsp;Pteridophyta from the next lower group of plants. In thenbsp;higher group the sporophyte generation is the more conspicuous;nbsp;in the Bryophyta the gametophyte (oophyte) generation is morenbsp;prominent.

Class EQTJISETINiE.

Leaves in whorls and small in proportion to the stem, in the form of sheaths, with long or short teeth, clasping the stem atnbsp;the nodes.

The fertile branches terminate in spikes formed of leaves modified in the form of peltate scales arranged in close whorlsnbsp;with sporangia attached to their inner surface.

Family EQUISETACEiE.

Contains the single recent genus Equiutum, and the fossil species included under the generic name

^ Coimack, Annals Bot. vol. vii. 1893, p. 63.

EaursEiiTEs.

Genus EaUISETITES, Sternberg.

[Flor. Vorwelt, yü. 1838, p. 43.]

A. general name applied to sneb fossil remains as closely resemble the recent genus JEquisetum.

Brongniart/ Schimper, and other authors use the term Equisetum for the fossil representatives of that genus; as the former hasnbsp;pointed out, there are several species which from the characternbsp;of the fertile as well as the sterile stem structures cannot benbsp;separated from the recent genus. So far as we are able to judge,nbsp;this appears to be the case; but as yet we are in the dark as to thenbsp;histological structure of the fossil forms, and, with such materialnbsp;as palaeobotanists have to deal with, there cannot be any certaintynbsp;as to the exact connection between the living and fossil equise-taceous plants. In addition to this necessary imperfection of thenbsp;fossil material, there is another argument in favour of some slightnbsp;distinction in the name used for species other than those now innbsp;existence, namely the fact that we thus have a convenient distinguishing mark between recent species of Equisetum and theirnbsp;geological representatives.

Owing to the absence of internal structure in the fossil representatives of the Equisetaeea our exact knowledge of the ancestral forms of Equisetum leaves much to be desired. Graf Solms hasnbsp;called attention to this fact in his “Fossil Botany,”^{1 2} and he gives anbsp;short critical account of the geological history of the sole survivingnbsp;genus. A few examples have been recorded from the Coal-Measuresnbsp;of diflerent countries, but as a rule there is very little to be learntnbsp;from them. Without attempting any review of the older equi-setaceous plants, it is of interest to note that there appears to benbsp;some evidence for the existence of this family in Britain during thenbsp;Coal-Measures period. Kidston ² has recently figured and describednbsp;part of a sporangiferous spike which seems to resemble the fertilenbsp;apex of a recent Equisetum stem. This new species from thenbsp;Coal-Measures of Yorkshire is named Equisetum Hemingwayi.

1

' Brongniart, Tableau, p. 46.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;p. 175.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Annals, vol. ix. ser, vi, 1892, p. 138. A Permian species, E. Vaujolyi, hasnbsp;recently been recorded by Professor Zeiller from Commentry. (Saporta, Rev.nbsp;gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, pi. iii. p. 179.)

EQUISEIITES.

So far as facts are available, we are warranted in the conclusion that the species of the genus Equisetum, from the Upper Carboniferous period to the present day, appear to have undergone butnbsp;little change in habit and external appearance; the most strikingnbsp;difference being one of size. In the Triassic period, whennbsp;Equisetites seems to have reached its maximum development, wenbsp;find an abundance of very large stems; from that time the sizenbsp;gradually decreases, and, in the Wealden strata, the few speciesnbsp;that are known approach much more nearly in size to the livingnbsp;members of the family.

1.—Equisetites Lyelli, Mantell.

1833. Equisetum Lyelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 24-5, figa, 1-3.

1845. Equisetites Lyelli, Unger, Gen. spec, plant, foss. p. 60.

1848. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Lyelli, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl. p. 464.

1849. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetum Lyelli, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.

1854. Equisetites Lyelli, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 8.

1869. Equisetum Lyelli, Schimper, Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 265, and vol. iii. p. 453.

1871. Equisetum Lyelli, Schenk, Palaeontographica, vol. xix. p. 207, pi. xxii. figs. 10-13.

1882. Equisetites Lyelli, Renault, Cours bot. foss. vol. ii. p. 150.

1889. Equisetum JLyelli, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 6.5, pi. i. fig. 7; pi. ii. figs. 4 and 5.

Type. Small pieces of stem of an average thickness of 1-5 cm.; internodes about 2’5 cm. in length, the leaf-sheaths divided intonbsp;numerous linear acuminate teeth. The surface of the internodesnbsp;shows faintly marked and numerous longitudinal lines. Singlenbsp;branches at the nodes of frequent occurrence. Sporangia andnbsp;spores unknown.

The majority of the specimens in the British Museum are pieces of stems showing the leaf-teeth projecting some distance abovenbsp;each node, and also in a few instances there is a thin brown filmnbsp;on the surface of the intemodes. This brown surface layer isnbsp;all that remains of the plant tissues, and probably is simply thenbsp;remains of the epidermal layer of cells; it is well shown innbsp;specimens V. 59 and V. 2864.

EaniSETIIES. 25

V. 59. PI. I. Fig. 5.

A good specimen, about 12 cm. in lengtb; leaves and nodes well shown, also the base of a lateral branch. St. Leonards.

Presented hy Mrs. Burnett, 1882.

V. 59«. This small piece is probably the apical bud of a stem or branch, (y. 3601. St. Leonards.

Presented hy Mrs. Burnett, 1882.

V. 710. Well-preserved stem; shows three internodes 2-2’5 cm. in length ; leaves distinct. St. Leonards.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Dawson Coll.

V. 2284. Possibly a badly preserved leaf-sheath of P. Lyelli. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;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 P. Lyelli type. At one ornbsp;two of the nodes where the leaf-sheaths are less complete therenbsp;is a marked resemblance to P. Phillipsii,'- Schimper. Cf. alsonbsp;P. lusitanicum,^ Heer. Some of these larger examples come verynbsp;near to the figure of Calamites arenaeeus minor, Jaeger,® a speciesnbsp;of Pquisetites from the Stuttgart sandstone. Sussex.

Besides Coll.

V. 2730«. Probably the tapering end of a stem showing overlapping leaves. Cf. Mantell’s figure ‘ showing a similar tapering stem. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ruffordnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coll.

2864. Several specimens with good nodes and leaves; also branch scars. Pounceford,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sussex.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Becklesnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coll.

2867. This piece of stem shows five internodes, measuring 10 cm. in length and 1’5 cm. in breadth. One distinct branchnbsp;scar, with traces of others. Imperfect impressions in some placesnbsp;of the long leaf-teeth.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cf.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Schenk, Palseontographica, vol.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;xix.

Pl. xxii. figs. 10-11. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantellnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coll.

3579. An unusually long piece of a branch attached to the stem.

Mantell Coll.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Schenk, Palseontographica, vol. xix. pl. xxii. figs. 6-9.

® Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, pl. viii. figs. 1-6. ® Jaeger, Pflanzenverstein. Stuttgart, pl. vi. fig. 2.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Geol. S.E. England, p. 245.

EÖTJISETITES.

Average length of internodea 2 cm., Mantell Coll.

3591. Badly preserved and crushed stem, shows four and a half internodes. One branch. Cf. Schenk, Palaeontographica,nbsp;vol. xix. pi. xxiv. fig. 12.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

3594, Stem showing three nodes, sheathing leaves, and one branch.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

3598. Small piece, with one node and leaf-teeth particularly well shown, also a branch; almost identical with Schenk’s fig. 11,nbsp;pi. xxii. Palaeontographica, vol. xix.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

3601. This small specimen may be merely a fragment crushed at one end, but pos.sibly it is the apical termination of a branch.nbsp;The long linear leaf-teeth are distinctly seen and appear to benbsp;closely pressed against the apical bud. Cf. JHquisetites Milnsteri,nbsp;Schimp.'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

8383. Internodes about 2'2 cm. long and 2'2 cm. broad. This specimen, also 10,847, 12,399 and others, has shorter intemodesnbsp;than most examples of the species; the leaves are less clearly seen,nbsp;but faintly indicated here and there. There is a distinct similarity,nbsp;as regards the diameter of the stem and the length of internodes,nbsp;between such specimens as this and the figure of Equisetitesnbsp;Phillipsii, Schimp., given by Schenk,^ but I am unable to fixnbsp;upon any definite characteristic which would warrant the removalnbsp;of these larger forms to another species. Pounceford. Mantell Coll,

12,399. Probably the same species. 14-5 cm. long; leaves not clearly defined. Pounceford.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

12,403. Internodes 2-5 cm. in length, 1‘8 cm. broad. Imperfectly preserved. Pounceford. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

12,406. 11-5 cm. long. Impressions in the places of the characteristic leaves. Pounceford.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

39,123. 6-5 cm. in length. Crushed and very imperfect. At two of the nodes there are irregular projections, with theirnbsp;surfaces exhibiting a rough warty appearance ; in all probability

' Schimper, Trait, pal. veg. Atlas, pi. viii. fig. 4. Palasontographica, vol. xix. pi. xxii.

EauISETITES.

the result of iron pyrites. At first sight these rough projecting parts remind one of Phyllotheca sporangia, hut in reality they havenbsp;no real connection with the stem. Pounceford.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

The following registered specimens are smaller, or less worthy of noteV. 2318, Rufford Coll.; 3575-3Ö78, 3580, 3585-3590,nbsp;3592, 3593, 3595-3597, 3599, 3600, 3602-3606, 10,835-10,839,nbsp;10,847, 38,375, Mantell Coll.

2.—Equisetites Burchardti, Dunker.

1824. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Carpolitlius Mantellij Stokes and Webb, Trans. Geol. Soc. Yol. i.

ser. ii. p. 423, pi. xlvi. figs. 3 and 4, and pi. xlvii. fig. 1.

1833. P Carpolithus Mmtelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 245, and fig. p. 246.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Dunker, Wealdenbildnng, p. 2, pi.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;v. fig. 7.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Carpolithus cordatus, Dunker, loc.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;cit.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;p. 22,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pi. ii. figs. 7 andnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;10.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Carpolithus Huttoni, Dunker, loc.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;cit.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;p. 22,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pi. ii. fig. 8.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Carpolithus Lindleyanus, Dunker,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;loc.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;cit. p.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;22, pi. ii. fig.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;7.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Carpolithus Mantelli, Dunker, loc. cit. p. 21, pi. ii. fig. 9.

1848. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Carpolithus Mantelli, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl. 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. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Carpolithus Lindleyanus, Bronn, loc. cit. p. 239.

1849. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.

1850. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Unger, Gen. spec, plant, foss. p. 59.

1851. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Ettingsbausen, Haidinger Abb. vol. iv.

Abth. i. p. 65.

1852. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Ettingsbausen, Abb. k.-k. geol. Beicbs. p. 10,

pi. i. figs. 3 and 4.

1854. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Carpolithes Mantelli, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 5.

1869. Equisetites Burchardti, Schimper, Trait, pal. vég. Yol. i. p. 264. 1870-72. Cycadinocarpust cordatus, Scbimper, loc. cit. yoI. ii. p. 211.nbsp;1870-72. Cycadinoearpus'i Huttoni, Scbimper, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 210.nbsp;1870-72. Cycadinocarpus Lindleyanus, Scbimper, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 240.nbsp;1870-72. 'i Cycadinocarpus Mantelli, Scbimper, he. cit. vol. ii. p. 211,nbsp;Atlas, pi. Ixxii. fig. 21.

1871. Equisetites Burchardti, Scbenk, Palseontographica, vol. xix. p. 205, pi. xxii. figs. 1-5.

1874. Equisetites Burchardti, Scbimper, loc. cit. vol. iii. p. 453.

1878. Equisetites Burchardti, Dixon, Geol. Sussex, edit. iii. p. 282.

1882. Equisetites Burchardti, Renault, Cours bot. foss. vol. ii. p. 151.

1889. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Bristow, Mem. Geol. Surv. p. 288.

1890. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equisetites Burchardti, Saporta, Compt. Rend. vol. cxi. p. 250.

28 EQUISEIIIES.

Type. Pieces of stem witli -well-marked dentate sheaths. The species is thus defined by Bunker: “ Equisetites caule tenui multi-artieulato, striato, striis sichacutis viii.-x. aeque distantibus, vaginisnbsp;tumidis lanceolato-dentatis. ’’

The specimen figured by Bunker has much shorter intemodes and more distinct sheathing leaves than most of the Englishnbsp;examples. Schenk’s figures afford a much better idea of thenbsp;species as represented in the National Collection; long slendernbsp;internodes with tubers attached to the nodes. The charactersnbsp;shown in Bunker’s figures are those of subaerial branches, but mostnbsp;of Schenk’s specimens are underground stem structures.

Equisetites Burchardti, Bunk., is chiefly conspicuous by the tubers which occur in large numbers, both isolated and attachednbsp;to the stem. The oval bodies figured by Stokes and Webb undernbsp;the name CarpoUthus Mantelli have been included by later writersnbsp;under Bunker’s species. In the above list of synonyms I havenbsp;given expression to a feeling of uncertainty as to the correctness ofnbsp;this view; the enlarged drawing given by Stokes and Webb ’ showsnbsp;certain characters suggestive of something quite distinct from annbsp;Equisetaceous tuber. If their figure be an accurate representationnbsp;of the fossil, its true position must be regarded as somewhatnbsp;doubtful. The other species of Ca/rpolithus figured by Bunkernbsp;are referred to Equisetites Burchardti, with the exception ofnbsp;Carpolithus sertum,^ which is probably identical with E. Yokoyamce,nbsp;sp. nov., and C. Brongniarti^ which represents a tuber much largernbsp;than E. Burchardti, and somewhat different in form. In the figuresnbsp;of C. cordatus the slightly cordate tuber is attached to a node ofnbsp;the slender stem of E. Burchardti. Bunker’s various species ofnbsp;Carpolithus were transferred by Schimper to the genus Cyeadino-carpus, indicative of Cycadean affinities. In 1871 Schenk figurednbsp;some examples of Equisetites Burchardti, which showed conclusivelynbsp;the true nature of most of the various forms of tubers previouslynbsp;classed with fossil fruits. He pointed out how the variations innbsp;size and shape, as represented in Bunker’s figures, could be easilynbsp;explained by the effects of pressure and the manner of preservation.nbsp;If we examine these figures carefully it appears improbable that

* Loc. cit. pi. xlvii. fig. 1.

^ ’W’ealdenbildung, p. 22, pi. vii. fig. 3. 2 Ibid. p. 22, pi. if. figs. 6 and 60.

EQTJISEIITES.

they can all he referred to one species; many of them were no doubt Unnecessarily separated by Dunker, but in the case of Carpolithusnbsp;sertttm and C. Brongniarti we do not recognize the characteristicnbsp;form of Equisetites Burohardti tubers, nor is it easy to accountnbsp;for the differences by such causes as Schenk has suggested.

In the third edition of Dixon’s “ Geology of Sussex,” Carruthers' suggests that the tuhers of E. Burchardti from the Isle of Wightnbsp;may be identical with Mantell’s “seed-vessels of Rediacem,”nbsp;described in the “Wonders of Geology,’”* from the Heathfieldnbsp;ironstone. Schenk ® refers to Ettingshausen’s figures of Equisetitesnbsp;Burchardti and Carpolithus Lindleyanus as representing respectivelynbsp;a Calamitean branch, and a fragment of Waleliia. The figures ofnbsp;the former appear to me, however, to have been correctly namednbsp;by Ettingshausen ; the Carpolithus may be a fragment of Walchia,nbsp;as Schenk suggests. Eontaine’s species, Equisetum virginicum,^nbsp;from the Potomac beds of America, agrees fairly closely withnbsp;E. Burchardti.

Although I have not included in the above synonymy a Japanese species, E. TJshimarense,^ recently described by Yokoyama fromnbsp;beds which he speaks of as Jurassic, it is by no means certain thatnbsp;his specimens should not be referred to the European species.nbsp;His description is very meagre, and the figured specimens notnbsp;particularly well preserved, but there is an obvious resemblance tonbsp;E. Burchardti-, this is admitted by Yokoyama, who points to thenbsp;similarity in the form of the tubers. His short account of thenbsp;branches agrees with that given by Schenk for the North Germannbsp;specimens, e.g. cf. Yokoyama’s fig. 3, pi. xi. and Schenk, pi.nbsp;xxii. fig. 1. In spite of the close resemblance, it is probablynbsp;better to retain Yokoyama’s new name ; the slight difference innbsp;shape is not of great specific value, but it is the chief featurenbsp;afforded by the imperfect materials. Eurther discoveries in thenbsp;Japanese plant beds may establish a specific distinction on anbsp;firmer basis, or, on the other hand, may afford stronger evidence ofnbsp;specific identity.

‘ p. 282.

^ Edit. iii. p. 372.

® Palaeontographica, p. 206.

^ Potomac Flora, p. 63.

® Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 39, pi. xi. figs. 1-3.

EaUISETITES.

Tubers of Equisetum and Equisetites.—Ta Duval-Jouve’s Monograph on the French species of Equisetum some good figures are given, which have been repeatedly reproduced by subsequentnbsp;writers, showing the nature and manner of occurrence of tubers.nbsp;On pi. i. fig. 4,^ is represented a node of a rhizome of Equisetumnbsp;maximum^ Lam,, from which three sets of pyriform tubers arenbsp;given off; fig. 1 of the same plate shows elliptical tubers attachednbsp;to a rhizome of E. arvense, L., and in fig. 5 the tuberous branchesnbsp;of E. palustre, L. These tubers occur either singly, or severalnbsp;together, in the form of a string of beads, and are simply internodes of rhizome branches which have been specially modified tonbsp;serve as reservoirs of food material. The internal tissues havenbsp;increased enormously in bulk, and, at the expense of growth innbsp;length, the internodes have become tuberous, with their parenchymatous cells rich in starch. At the base of each tuber the dentatenbsp;leaf-sheath is easily seen, and' if the end tuber of a chain benbsp;removed the sheath remains attached to the tuberous internodenbsp;next below in the form of an apical crown. Frequently the tubersnbsp;are wrinkled on the outside, and, where an axial cavity is present,nbsp;this surface-wrinkling may be very pronounced. These specialnbsp;internodal structures, after passing through a period of rest, arenbsp;able to grow into new Equisetum plants, and thus serve the purposenbsp;of vegetative reproduction.

Among recent “ Horsetails ” they occur more or less frequently in such species as E. arvense, L., E. syhatioum, L., E. 'Telmateia,nbsp;Ehrh., etc. According to Duval-Jouve, Equisetum tubers were firstnbsp;noticed by Helwing in 1712, and are thus described by him innbsp;E. arvense:^—Ilujus radicibus glandes copiose adhmrent, et quamnbsp;maxime in agris arenosis ejfodiuntur a suibus et pueris rustieis.nbsp;Orati et dulois sunt saporis. Instinctu naturce sues odoratu super-ficiem terrm detegunt, et tarn diu terram evolvunt, quoad appro-pinquent ad glandes, Poloniee Geguzie, nostratibus ‘Erd-Eüsse’nbsp;dietos, quod subuloi animadvertentes statim accurrunt, et pedibusnbsp;porcos abigentes leviosimo labore nucleos suos terrestres colligunt.nbsp;Maturescunt circa tempora autumniT

In 1768 Alberti V. Haller briefly refers to the same bodies as

* Hist. Hat. Equisetum.

“ Helwing, El. Plant, indig. Pruss, p. 31.

EQÜISETITES.

follows’ :—Radioihus tarnen glandium simile dliguid scepe adlimret, guot paroos credas requirere.” De Candolle in his “Flore Fran-Qaise ” ^ describes a new species, E. tuberosum, previously proposednbsp;by Hectot, and specially characterized by the formation of tubersnbsp;on the lower nodes. In 1828 Bischoff® figured the tubers ofnbsp;E. arvenae attached to the rhizome. Among more recent authors,nbsp;in addition to Duval-Jouve, Milde’ gives figures of tuhers attachednbsp;to E. hiemale, L.

Such tuberous internodes seem to have been unusually numerous on the rhizome of Equisetites Burchardti, as is clearly shown bynbsp;the large numbers of attached and separate tuhers in the Englishnbsp;quot;Wealden heds. No other species of Equisetites affords suchnbsp;numerous examples of tubers as this “Wealden form, but a Tertiarynbsp;species, Equisetites Parlatorii, Heer,® should also be quoted asnbsp;characterized by its chains of elliptical tubers. Heer originallynbsp;described this species as Physagenia Parlatorii,^ from Switzerland,nbsp;and recognized a probable relationship to E. Burchardti; he included it, however, among the “ Plantae incertco sedis^'' and, at thenbsp;Same time, compared the “ bladders ” to the tubers of Equisetumnbsp;arvense, L., and other species. Sohimper afterwards changednbsp;Heer’s name, Physagenia Parlatorii to Equisetum Parlatorii?nbsp;Another instance of fossil tubers is recorded by Heer from thenbsp;Jurassic beds of Amur,® under the name Equisetum Burejense,nbsp;Heer, and compared by him to the Wealden Equisetites Bur-oha/rdti. The same author has recorded another species withnbsp;tubers, E. arcticum. Heer, from the “Miocene” of Spitzbergen.®nbsp;The gigantic Triassic Equisetites appear to have produced correspondingly large tubers, e.g. E. arenaceum, Jaeg., and E. Munsteri,nbsp;Stemb.’quot;

’ Hist. Stirp. indig. Helvet, vol. iii. p. 2 (under No. 1677, not 1676 as stated by Duval-Jouve).

* Vol. V. p. 245.

® Die Chareen und Eqiiiseteen, pi. iv. fig. 6.

’ Mon. Equiset. pi. xxix. Nova Acta Ac. Cses. Leop.-Car. 1865, vol. xxxii. ® Heer, El. Tert. Helvet, vol. iii. p. 158, pi. cxlv. figs. 17-18.

® Ibid. vol. i. p. 109, pi. xlii. figs. 2-17.

’ Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 261.

® El. loss. Arct. vol. iv. p. 99, pi. xxii. figs. 6-7.

® Ibid. vol. ii. pi. i. figs 1-15.

Schimper, Trait, pal. vég. Atlas, pis. ix.-xi.

EQTTISETITES.

V. 2367. PI. I. Figs. 5 and 6.

This specimen shows very clearly the nature of the tuher and the dentate leaf. A delicate branched root occurs immediatelynbsp;below the node to which the tuber is attached. At the apexnbsp;of the tuber the pointed teeth of the leaf-sheath are easily seen.nbsp;Cf. Schenk, Palseontographica, vol. xix. p. 206, pi. xxii. fig. ba;nbsp;also nOuval-Jouve, Hist. Hat. Equisetum, pi. 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 threenbsp;delicate linear acuminate teeth; the stem is traversed by twonbsp;distinct grooves.

Fig. 5 suggests the natural position of growth of the underground axis with its tuberous branch and branched root. Bexhill.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 1070. Slender and imperfectly preserved stem, 23‘5 cm. long. Several casts of tubers. Cf. Schenk, Paleeontographica, vol. xix.nbsp;pi. xxii. fig. 1.

V. 1070 and V. 1070«. A short piece of stem with three tubers, and another piece with four.

V. 1070S. Fragments of stems and several tubers. Two tubers shown in contact. Hear Hastings.

Presented ly P. Rufford, Psq., 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. 2730i. Harrow curved stem 20 cm. long; long intemodes, 2-3-5 cm. in length. On the same specimen occur several globularnbsp;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.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2834. Several tubers of smaller size, but similar in form to the larger examples of this species. Cf. Hunker, Wealdenbildung,nbsp;pi. ii. fig. 10. Bexhill.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2818 and V. 2819. Fragment of the same species. Bexhill.

Rufford Coll.

EOTISETITES, 33

3.—Equisetites Yokoyamae, sp. nov.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Oarpolithus sertum, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 22, pl. vii. %. 3.

1875. Mquisetites Burchardti (in part), Schenk, Palseoutographica, vol. xxiii. p. 157, pl. xxvi. fig. 1.

Type. Tubers and fragments of sterns from Ecolesbourne, near Hastings. British Museum. Woodcuts, Figs. 2, 3 and 3*.

Stem narrow, internodes about I'l cm. in length and 5 mm. in breadth ; tubers narrowly elliptical, attached singly or in chainsnbsp;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 H. Burchardti, Schimp. Mr. Ruffordnbsp;informs me that these two kinds of tubers never occur together,nbsp;the specimens of the latter species being found at Bexhill, thosenbsp;of the other type at Eoclesbourne. I have decided, therefore,nbsp;to give expression to the distinctive character of the Ecolesbournenbsp;tubers, and have named the new species after Dr. Tokoyama ofnbsp;Tokyo, who has in recent years made valuable additions to ournbsp;knowledge of the Mesozoic floras of Japan.

In E. Yohoyamcc there are very few details of structure shown lu the sandstone specimens. The stems are usually in the formnbsp;of smooth slender easts with little or no indication of longitudinalnbsp;libs and grooves, or leaf-sheaths; the tubers differ from those ofnbsp;E. Burchardti in their smaller size and narrower elliptical form.

of the best examples is represented in Fig. 2; part of a shrunken tuber is shown in place, and immediately below it isnbsp;^ branch attached to the node. This example, with several others,nbsp;Fas probably been preserved in the sandy soil in its originalnbsp;position of growth.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;*

34 EötriSETITES.

In Figs. 3 and 3* we have examples of more perfect tubers. The tubers figured by Dunker under the name CarpoUthus sertwmnbsp;agree very closely with some of the English specimens; hut thenbsp;absence of any definition of the hlorth German species preventsnbsp;us adopting Bunker’s name, even if we regard his specimens asnbsp;identical with ours.

In his second Memoir on the Wealden Flora, Schenk has figured a specimen with numerous tubers under the name Equisetitesnbsp;Burchardti, Dunk.; this seems, however, to have a closer resemblance to our new species; the tubers are narrow and less sphericalnbsp;than those of E. Burchardti. If we compare Schenk’s fig. 1,nbsp;pi. xxiL Palseontographica, vol. xix. and fig. 1, pi. xxvi. Palseon-tographiea, vol. xxiii. we notice a distinct difference, not only in thenbsp;shape of the tubers, hut in the general habit of the tuber-hearingnbsp;plant. Schenk’s latter figure shows some of the tubers joined end tonbsp;end; the same kind of arrangement occurs in some of the Englishnbsp;examples, e.g. V. 2365t;. It is, perhaps, not entirely satisfactorynbsp;to have to rely upon certain differences in the shape of tuberousnbsp;internodes in determining specific definitions; but in the presentnbsp;instance the available material appears to show well-definednbsp;differences, and there is confirmatory evidence in the fact thatnbsp;the two forms of tubers are never found in close association.

V. 2871. Fig. 2. Internodes 1-1-2 cm. long, about 2 mm. broad. The sandstone matrix is penetrated by stems and rootnbsp;fragments; portions of tubers. Cf.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;E. Burchardti,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Dunk., pi. i.

fig. 5. Eccleshourne. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BecUes Coll.

V. 2871. Fig. 3. A few well-preserved tubers; two shown in place at one node; fragments of roots. ïfodes not clearlynbsp;marked, no ribs on the internodes, the latter about 1 cm. innbsp;length. Eccleshourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BecUes Coll.

V. 2335. Fig. S*, p. 33. Numerous tubers, some attached to the slender stem. Eccleshourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 727. Several tubers, with stem fragments; many of the former show surface depressionsnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;duenbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;to shrinkagenbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;of the tuber

tissues. Eccleshourne. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bawson Coll.

V. 2365. Five specimens. No detail shown.

riLICIN-^.

V. 2365^. Two long and narrow tubers joined together. Cf. Dunker, Wealdenbildung, pi. vii. fig. 3; also Schenk, Palaeonto-graphica, vol. xxiii. pi. xxvi. fig. 1, and Heer, FI. Tert. Helvet.nbsp;Vol. iii. pl. cxlv. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rujfordnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coll.

V. 2700. Yery thin stem, 1 mm. broad and 8 cm. long; matrix penetrated by roots. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ruffordnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coll.

V. 2833 and V. 2834. Several tubers of the characteristic shape. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rujfordnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coll.

Class EILTCIHJS.

Leaves large in proportion to the stem. Sporangia usually occur on the margins or lower surface of ordinary leaves; occasionallynbsp;the fertile leaves are distinguished from the sterile by well-marked characters.

Sub-Class EILICES.

Isosporous plants. The prothallus (gametophyte generation) Usually monoecious, of moderately large size, and capable of annbsp;independent existence. The sporangia usually occur in definitenbsp;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 associated with our Coal-Measures.

When we come to inquire how far palaeobotany has made us intimately acquainted with the general morphology, the minutenbsp;histology, and the natural affinities, of the Coal-Measure ferns,nbsp;it must be admitted that our scientific knowledge of them isnbsp;extremely limited. There are certain forms of Palaeozoic ferns,nbsp;end in the Mesozoic floras there are also a few genera, of whichnbsp;it is possible to speak with confidence as to family, and occasionallynbsp;US to internal structure; but such oases are exceptional. Thenbsp;cid generic names such as Pecopteris, Sphenoptens, Neuropteris,nbsp;end others, were instituted as convenient terms by which to

FILICIN^.

distinguish certain types of fern fronds, separated from one another hy the characters of their nervation; these have been, and stillnbsp;are to a large extent, the accepted terms which are used innbsp;speaking of Palseozoio specimens. They are accepted on thenbsp;understanding that in making use of such names we are merelynbsp;admitting our imperfect knowledge, and, as the only possiblenbsp;basis of classification, make use of a system which is thoroughlynbsp;artificial. Ettingshausen, whose works on the venation of thenbsp;vegetative organs of plants are so widely known, attempted anbsp;classification of living ferns on the same lines as those whichnbsp;are followed in dealing with fossils.* That such a system ofnbsp;arrangement rests on a foundation utterly insecure has beennbsp;pointed out hy Stur in his classic work on “ Die Carbon-Eloranbsp;der Sohatzlarer Schichten.”® He shows how such a genus asnbsp;Polypodium affords examples of eleven of Ettingshausen’s venationnbsp;types, and how the same genus has three types in common withnbsp;Aeroatichum, four with Pteris, four with Aaplenium, and six withnbsp;Aapidium. Then again the venation type Sphenopteris occurs innbsp;twelve genera and three families. Hence it must he admittednbsp;that the genera which are based on characters of venation alonenbsp;are essentially provisional, and, if recognized as such, are ofnbsp;extreme value until increased knowledge places us in a positionnbsp;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 dealingnbsp;with Mesozoic and Tertiary plants. This practice, I am inclinednbsp;to think, has been followed too commonly; and the result hasnbsp;been that among the more modern fossil ferns we find a largenbsp;number of species spoken of by the names of living genera, tonbsp;which they have little or no claim to relationship. In speakingnbsp;of fossil algse attention has been drawn to the great danger whichnbsp;necessarily accompanies this use of modern names; the samenbsp;remarks apply in the present instance with equal weight. Surelynbsp;there ought to be good evidence at our command before a fossilnbsp;fern is designated by such names as BicTtsonia, Thyrsopteris,nbsp;Aspidium, etc., and thus presumably an authenticated occurrencenbsp;put on record of any of these genera at a certain locality and

^ Farnkrt. Jetztwelt. Vienna, 1865.

^ Abh. k.-k. geol. Eeichs. vol. xl. Abth. i. 1885.

FILICINJ5.

geological horizon. The termination “ itei,quot; or some similar ¦widely adopted ending, is in some degree a safeguard; it at leastnbsp;shows at once that the species is a fossil, and not a recent fern,nbsp;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 palseobotanicalnbsp;progress, and a serious obstacle to phylogenetic investigations.nbsp;The better plan, and one less likely to add unsound links in thenbsp;chain of evidence on which genealogical diagrams are attempted,nbsp;¦Would be to retain the older system of nomenclature, proposed bynbsp;Urongniart andr added to or modified by subsequent writers, untilnbsp;such specimens are forthcoming which supply us with fertile frondsnbsp;or pinnas, and thus render possible a comparison with recent formsnbsp;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,” ^nbsp;the difficulties of determining fossil ferns are brought home in anbsp;clear and striking manner by one well qualified to speak on thenbsp;characters of recent ferns. Many of these difficulties are recognizednbsp;by all who have even the most superficial acquaintance withnbsp;Palaeobotanioal herbaria, but it is probable that had more attentionnbsp;been paid to Hooker’s valuable cautions our lists of synonymsnbsp;¦Would not have reached that length and variety which they toonbsp;frequently show.

There are a number of fossil ferns from rocks of different ages, Darned neither on account of their venation nor fructificationnbsp;characters, but on certain morphological characteristics which arenbsp;easily recognized and typical of some peculiar modern genera,nbsp;^o doubt such a basis for a generic title may often be trustworthy,nbsp;Dud exceedingly useful as a means of arriving within measurablenbsp;distance of natural affinity. In such cases, therefore, where wenbsp;have striking morphological features to guide us, we may withnbsp;advantage make use of them without waiting for the furthernbsp;D'cidence of sori or sporangia.

In the works of Stur® and Zeiller^ on Carboniferous ferns we ^Dve admirable proofs of the better material which palaeohotanists

1 Mem. Geol. Sury. vol. ii. pt. ii. 1848. ^ hoc. cit.

® Bassin Houiller de Valenciennes.

FiLiciir^.

have at their disposal to-day, as compared to that which was accessible to earlier workers. In the writings of these authorsnbsp;many of the proyisional and artificial terms are replaced by newnbsp;generic names of real taxonomic value, and resting on such a basisnbsp;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 conclusions as to limits of specific distinctions, and the claim of isolatednbsp;fragments to be included in one or other genus or species, has beennbsp;demonstrated with only too much clearness. It is impossible tonbsp;deny that many of our fossil species, determined by those muchnbsp;more fully equipped with the requisite knowledge and experiencenbsp;than myself, are of very doubtful value. Granting the truth ofnbsp;this assertion, it must be remembered that specific distinctions andnbsp;definitions are of very great importance in fossil botany, and if wenbsp;waited until our hands were full of all the needful data we shouldnbsp;never make any appreciable advance in the analysis of geologicnbsp;floras. We must recognize that the numerous species of fossilnbsp;plants do not all rest on unequivocal foundations; but they are atnbsp;all events not quite so meaningless and unscientific as some wouldnbsp;lead us to believe.

The Wealden material affords many interesting examples of the importance of bearing in mind the great differences in speciesnbsp;which are solely due to the manner of preservation, and thenbsp;character of the matrix in which the fossils are found. Some ofnbsp;the fragments, marked out in clear dark-brown lines on a finenbsp;homogeneous stone, present a very different appearance when seennbsp;as carbonaceous impressions on the surface of a grey-coloured clay.nbsp;Again, such characters as the shape of the pinnules, whethernbsp;acutely terminated or with obtuse apices, whether with entirenbsp;margins or slightly dentate, are to be used with extreme care innbsp;view of the different forms which appear in the ultimate segmentsnbsp;of recent fronds, according as they are fresh and flat, or dry andnbsp;more or less curled over at the edges. The position of the pinnaenbsp;on the main rachis, whether alternate or opposite, is of little valuenbsp;in the case of fragmentary remains; in recent fronds the pinn®nbsp;may be opposite towards one end of the rachis, and distinctlynbsp;alternate towards the other. Another character which I amnbsp;disposed to regard as of little value is the relative size of thenbsp;fronds, and also the size of the ultimate divisions. Probably the

FILICINiE. 39

specimens placed together under Rufforiia Oopperti (Dunk.), as shown in Pis. III.-V., will be regarded by some as obviouslynbsp;distinct; such, indeed, they may prove to be, but at present I amnbsp;unable to draw any line between the various types which seemnbsp;to pass gradually one into another without any appreciable break.nbsp;To class such leaves together among living ferns would not benbsp;considered an unwarranted step in the case of certain species; if,nbsp;therefore, such a course is adopted in dealing with fossil fernsnbsp;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 Baciborski of a Mesozoic fern floranbsp;from Jurassic rocks in the neighbourhood of Cracow.¹ He has madenbsp;good use of the specimens of fern sporophylls at his disposal, andnbsp;from the character of the sori and sporangia he has been able tonbsp;refer many species to their natural position. The genus Kluhia isnbsp;proposed by this writer for the reception of some widely-spreadnbsp;species which possess sporangia of the same type as those of thenbsp;recent Schizaeete. Such a resemblance to Schizacem was first pointednbsp;out by Bunbury “ in Peeopteris exilis, Phill., from the Yorkshirenbsp;coast; this species he referred to a position near to Anemia andnbsp;Mohria. Eesearohes such as this are of the greatest value, and bynbsp;instituting new names like the one proposed by Baciborski, we arenbsp;removing the plants from a purely artificial designation to a placenbsp;lu the same category as recent ferns, where the generic and specificnbsp;titles are professedly based on accepted and trustworthy characters.nbsp;In the following descriptions of Weald en Filices, the acq[uisition ofnbsp;u considerable amount of fresh material, thanks mainly to thenbsp;labours of Mr. Buffbrd, has enabled us to arrive at certain conclusions as to the systematic position of plants hitherto knownnbsp;Under provisional names. The transference of Sphenopterisnbsp;^antelli, Brong., to Onychiopm Mantelli (Brong.), is an instancenbsp;this; and in the case of the Wealden species, Sphenopterisnbsp;Oopperti, Dunk., there is evidence at hand which rendersnbsp;the employment of a new generic designation an advisablenbsp;®lep. Iix both these instances I have mentioned, the changenbsp;cf name, and the reference to certain families of ferns, are based

1

Bot. Jahrb. vol. xiii. p. i; 1891.

® Quart. Journ. Geol. Soo. vol. vii. 1851, p. 188, pi. xiii. figs. 5a and 55. examination of Bunbury’s specimen (Botanical Museum, Cambridge), enablesnbsp;®ie to confirm the reference to Schizoeea.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

on the general character of the fructification, and not on details of sporangial structure. Unfortunately no sporangia are sufficientlynbsp;clearly preserved to afford that important assistance which anbsp;more intimate knowledge of them would give. It is to benbsp;regretted that the material from the English Wealden does notnbsp;often enable ns to learn anything as to histological structure.nbsp;There is, however, a notable exception in Tempskya Sohimperi,nbsp;Corda, in which structural details have often been more or lessnbsp;clearly mineralized, thus enabling us to add something towards thenbsp;elucidation of the real botanical position of this remarkable fossil.

A. Genera assigned to existing Families.

Order LEPTOSPOEANGIATA:.

The Sporangia, with walls composed of a single layer of cells, are developed from single surface cells.

Family POLYPODIACE.^.

Sporangia stalked, and with a vertical incomplete annulus.

Genus ONYCHIOPSIS, Yokoyama.

[Joum. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 26.]

Erond tripinnate, main rachis slender, may be winged, pinnae alternate, approximate, lanceolate. Pinnules narrow, lanceolate,nbsp;acute, alternate, the larger ones serrate, and gradually passing intonbsp;pinnules with narrow ultimate segments. Eertile pinnse withnbsp;alternate elliptical pinnules which differ in shape from the sterilenbsp;pinnules, and have the sporangia on the lower surface, giving themnbsp;the appearance of raised elliptical bodies.

This genus was instituted by Yokoyama for the reception of a Japanese species, originally described by Geyler' as Thyrsopterisnbsp;elongata, and afterwards referred to by Yokoyama as Dichsmianbsp;elongata. The occurrence of fertile pinnules of a distinct andnbsp;unusual type led to the removal of the specimens from Thyrsopterisnbsp;to OmjcMopsis. Yokoyama pointed out the resemblance betweennbsp;the fertile pinnrn of the Japanese specimens and those of the

^ Palffiontographica, vol. xïiv. 1876-77, p. 224, pi. xxxi. fig. 4.

OUYCHIOPSIS.

recent genera Onychium and Gymnogramme, especially of tlie former. The original diagnosis of the genus Onychiopsis, withnbsp;reference to a single species, 0. elongata, is as follows':—

“Fertile segments different from the sterile. Sori terminal, linear, on each side of the midrib, parallel with the margin,nbsp;involucrate; the involuorum of each side confluent over thenbsp;midrib.”

So far as I have been able to discover, this is the first record of Onychium among fossil ferns. According to the “Synopsisnbsp;Filicum,”^ the genus occurs at the present time in Northernnbsp;India, China, Japan, Java, Persia, Abyssinia, and Malayan Peninsula and Islands, etc.

The more detailed examination of the points of agreement between the fossil species and the living genus will be attemptednbsp;in the description of the two species Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.)nbsp;and 0. Mantelli (Prong.).

1.—Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brongniart).

1824. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Symenopteris psilotoides^ Stokes and quot;VVebb, Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii.

vol. i. p. 423, pi. xlvi. fig. 7.

1825. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Symenopterispsilotoides, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt. iv. p. xxii.

1827. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Symenopteris psilotoides, Mantell, Illust. Geol. Sussex, p. 55, pi. i.

Za and Zh ; pi. iii. fig. 6 ? and 7; pi. iii.^{1 2} fig. 2.

1828. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Brongniart, Prodrome, p. 60.

Sphenopteris Mantellij Brongniart, Hist. vég. foss. p. 170, pi. xlv.

figs. 3-7.

1833. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 241.

1833. Sphenopteris Sillimani, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 239.

1836. Cheilanthites Mantelli, Göppert, Foss. Farnkrt. p. 231, Nova Acta Ac. Caes. Leop.-Car. vol. xvii. Supp.

1838. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt, vii. p. 56.

1839. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cheilanthites denticulatus, Eoemer, Verstein. Ool.-Geb, p. 9, pi. xvii.

%• 1-

1843. Cheilanthes {Sphenopteris) Mantelli, Dunker, Progr. p. 5.

1845. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Unger, Syn. plant, foss. p. 59.

1846. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 2, pi. i. fig. 4a.nbsp;1846. Sphenopteris Bomeri, Dunker, he. cit. p. 3, pi. i. figs. 3, 4 and 5.nbsp;1846. Sphenopteris tenera, Dunker, loc. cit. pi. viii. fig. 5.

1846. Confervites Jissus, Dunker, loc. cit. pi. i. fig. 1.

1848. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Broun, Index Pal. Nomencl, p. 1169.

1

' Yokoyama, loc. eit. p. 26.

2

Hooker and Baker, p. 143.

OUÏCHIOPSIS.

1848. ? Sphenopteris Sillimani, Bronn, Index Pal. Nomencl. p. 1170.

1850. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Unger, Gen. spec, plant. foss. p. 108.

1851-52. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Broun, Leth.. geog. vol. ii. p. 49, pl. xxviii. %. 4b5.

1852. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Ettingsliausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Eeichs. 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, Scliimper, Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 393.

1871. Sphenopteris Mantelli, Scbenk, Paleeontographica, vol. xix. p. 208, pl. xxiii. figs, 1-8.

1871. Sphenolepis Kurriana, Scbenk, pl. xxv. fig. 6, loc. cit. p. 243, pl. xxxviii. fig. 2.

1871. Sphenopteris Göpperti, Schenk (in part), loc. cit. pl. xxv. figs. 3 and 3«. (Not the other figures of this species.)

1874. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Schimper, Trait, pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 469.

1875. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Schenk, Palseontographica, vol. xxiii. p. 158,

pl. xxviii. fig. 12.

1878. Sphenopteris Moemeri, 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. 25 and 245.

1881. Sphenopteris raldensis. Heer, loc. cit. p. 14, pl. xv. figs. 9, 10 and 13, pl. xvi. fig. 55. (The other figures more doubtful.)

1883. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Trichomanites laxwm, Tenison-Woods, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S.

quot;Wales, vol. viii. pt. i. p. 95, pl. x. fig. 2.

1883. f Trichomanites spinifolimn, Tenison-Woods, ihid. p. 95, pl. iii. fig. 7.

1889. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 91, pl. 1. figs.

1 and 2.

1890. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Nathorst, Denksch. k. Ak. quot;Wiss. math.-nat. Cl.

vol. Ivii. p. 55 (referred to Onyehium).

1891. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Saporta, Compt. Send, cxiii. p. 250.

1891. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Mantelli, Engelhardt, Abb. Isis. Dresden, p. 79.

1892. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;? Trichomanites laxum, Jack and Etheridge, Geol. Pal. Queensland

and New Guinea, p. 315, pl. xviü. fig. 9.

Type. Portions of pinnse.

The type specimen was originally figured hy Stokes and quot;Webh in an anonymous paper which appeared in the Transactions of thenbsp;Geological Society for 1824.¹ These authors hesitated to pronouncenbsp;a decided opinion on the affinity of the plant, but recognized that

1

Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. i. p. 421.

ONYCHIOPSIS.

it would “probably be a Sphenopterisquot; in the system of Brong-niart. They proposed the name Symenopteris psilotoides. The same figure reappears in MantelTs “ Illustrations of the Geologynbsp;of Sussex ” under the origiual name. The species Sphenopterisnbsp;Mantelli is first mentioned by Mantell' in a quotation from a letternbsp;received by him from Brongniart, who proposed that the namenbsp;Symenopteris psilotoides should be replaced by the more suitablenbsp;designation Sphenopteris Mantelli.

Brongniart ^{1 2} includes the species in his Prodrome, and gives the first diagnosis in the Histoire®:—

“ S. foliis bipinnatifidis, pinnis approximatis virgatis fastigiatis, pinnulis obliquis, omnibus integris uninerviis, angustis, cuneatis,nbsp;apice oblique truncatis et subemarginatis; parte exteriori longiusnbsp;producta.”

Since 1828 different writers have added to or variously modified Brongniart’s definition; without quoting any of these we maynbsp;substitute a definition of the species founded on the exceedinglynbsp;good material in the National Collection.

Frond tripinnate, ovate lanceolate, rachis winged and prominent; pinnae lanceolate, alternate, approximate, given off from the mainnbsp;rachis at an acute angle. Pinnules alternate, narrow, lanceolatenbsp;acuminate, uninerved, of nervation type Coenopteridis; ^ the largernbsp;ones serrate and gradually passing into pinnae with narrow ultimatenbsp;segments.

Fructification in the form of sessile or shortly stalked linear ovate segments with rugose surfaces, and terminating usually innbsp;a very short awn-like apical prolongation.

The specimen figured by Mantell in 1827^ (pi. iii. fig. 6) may belong to this species, but tbe figure represents a number ofnbsp;detached fragments which it is impossible to refer with muchnbsp;Certainty to any species. Mantell’s Sphenopteris Sillimani^ is verynbsp;possibly a badly preserved piece of an Onychiopsis Mantelli frond.nbsp;Carruthers,’ in his account of the Cretaceous plants in Dixon’s

1

' Illust. Geol. Sussex, p. 55.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Prodrome, p. 50.

® Hist. vég. loss. p. 170.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Luerssen, in Eabenhorst’s Krypt. Flora, vol. iii. p. 11.nbsp;® Illust. Geol. Sussex.

® Geol. S.E. England, p. 239.

’ Geol. Sussex, p. 282.

ONYCHIOÏSIS.

“Geology of Sussex,” refers to the method of branching in S, Sillimam as unlike that of ferns, but suggests it may possibly benbsp;the skeleton of part of a frond. It is true that Mantell’s specimennbsp;does not by any means closely resemble a typical Onychiopsisnbsp;ManteUi fragment, but it agrees fairly well with some of thenbsp;more fragmentary and less defined specimens. Schenk ^ decidesnbsp;to regard Confervites Jinsus, Dunker, as a fragment of 0. Mantellijnbsp;and is led to this conclusion from an examination of Dunker’s typenbsp;specimen. There is no appreciable difference between Dunker’snbsp;figure of this supposed alga and Mantell’s Sphenopteris SilUmani-,nbsp;it would seem, therefore, that the best course to follow is to regardnbsp;both names as synonyms of Onychiopsis MantelU.

With regard to the species of Sphenopteris, S. Romeri and 8. tenera, figured by Dunker, there can be little or no doubt thatnbsp;previous writers have correctly included them under Brongniart’snbsp;charaoteristio Wealden species.

The species of Sphenopteris described and figured by Tate from the Geelhoutboon beds in the Ditenhage series of South Africa hasnbsp;not hitherto been compared to 0. MantelU. This South Africannbsp;form is compared by Tate’® to Sphenopteris Jugleri, Ettingshausennbsp;(written in Tate’s paper Fiilgeriquot;), a species included in thisnbsp;Catalogue under Rufforiia Gopperti (Dunk.). There is such annbsp;obvious resemblance between 8. antipodium and some of thenbsp;pieces of 0. MantelU fronds from the Eeclesbourne beds, that itnbsp;is impossible to point to any difference which would warrant thenbsp;retention of Tate’s name. After looking at Tate’s type specimennbsp;in the Museum of the Geological Society, Burlington Housenbsp;(41j. Foreign Coll.), I have no hesitation in regarding it as annbsp;example of 0. MantelU. In the National Collection there arenbsp;a few specimens of this plant from Africa, e.g. V. 2399 andnbsp;V. 2401. In the descriptions and illustrations of Northnbsp;German specimens Schenk has added considerably to our knowledge of this species, but he failed to recognize the fact,nbsp;since pointed out by Nathorst, that one of his figured specimensnbsp;of Sphenolepis Kurriana, Schenk,^ is in reality part of a fertilenbsp;frond of 0. MantelU. One of the specimens figured by Schenk^ as

‘ Palajontographica, vol. xix. p. 209.

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiii. 1867, p. 139, pi. vi. fig. 3. ® Palasoutographica, vol. xix. pi. xxxviii. fig. 2.

^ Loc. cit. pi. XXV. fig. 3.

ONTCHIOPSIS. 45

S. Göpperti is most probably a piece of a pinna of 0. Mantelli. I have little doubt that the specimens figured by Heer fromnbsp;Almargem, Portugal, as Sphenopteris valdemis are fragments ofnbsp;0. Mantelli; they correspond very closely with the coarser pinnanbsp;of the latter species. Of. e.g. Heer’s figs. 9 and 10, pi. xv.'nbsp;with the large frond from Ecclesbourne, PL II. Pig. 1. Possiblynbsp;fig. 11 of Heer represents another species, Euffordia Göpperti.

In 1883 Tenison-quot;Woods^ published an account of the fossil flora of the Coal deposits of Australia; in his list of ferns are includednbsp;two new species, TricTiomanites laxum and T. spinifolium, both ofnbsp;which, so far as it is possible to judge from the poor figures, maynbsp;in all probability be referred to OnycMopsis Mantelli.

Messrs Jack and Etheridge, in their recent work on “ The Geology and Palaeontology of Queensland and Hew Guinea,”'’ havenbsp;referred a fern from the Burrum beds of Queensland to Tenison-Woods’ species, T. laxum-, the figure of this plant leads me tonbsp;refer it, with very little hesitation, to the characteristic species ofnbsp;the European Wealden beds. The age of the Burrum beds is notnbsp;precisely defined; “newer than the Permo-Carboniferous, andnbsp;older than the Upper Cretaceous.” '^{1 2}

Fontaine, in his Monograph on the Potomac Flora, has instituted Several new species of Kunze’s isolated genus Thyrsopteris. Onnbsp;examining his figures of the various types, one cannot help feelingnbsp;that the grounds on which the genus has been chosen are somewhat insutflcient. After speaking of Heer’s description ofnbsp;Thyrsopteris, he notes a close resemblance between some ofnbsp;the Potomac forms and the sterile fronds of Kunze’s genus, andnbsp;goes on to say : ’ “ These {i.e. the Potomac specimens) I placenbsp;provisionally in the genus Thyrsopteris, on account of the greatnbsp;resemblance that the shape of the pinnules, the lobing, and thenbsp;nervation show to the sterile forms of the various species determined to be Thyrsopteris by their fructification. As, however, nonbsp;fructification is found in the Potomac species, the placing of thesenbsp;plants in the genus must be regarded as provisional.” Finally, wenbsp;read: “It should be noted that a number of the species of Thyrso-

1

1 Seec. Trap. Geol. Portugal, 1881.

’ Proc. Liun. Soc. ,N. S. quot;Wales, vol. viii. pt. i. 1883, p. 37. ’ Ibid. p. 315.

2

Ibid. p. 301.

’ Potomac Flora, p. 120. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,

OÏTYCHIOPSIS.

•is described in the following pages show a good many features similar to those of Sphempteris Mantelli, as described by Schenknbsp;and Heer.” In his description of T. rarinervis, Fontaine speaksnbsp;of his new species as '¦ “ one of the Sphenopteris Mantelli type, andnbsp;perhaps by some would be united with that species, but it is morenbsp;robust, and the pinnules are more like those of the Thyrsopterisnbsp;type.” Again, in describing T. insignis and T. insignis, war.nbsp;angustipennis, the same author adds that both represent plantsnbsp;belonging to the 8. Mantelli type.^ From an examination ofnbsp;Fontaine’s figures of the various species of Thyrsopteris, it isnbsp;difficult in some cases to thoroughly appreciate those characteristicsnbsp;which have served to separate the closely allied forms.

In discussing “S. Mantelli,'” Fontaine refers to its polymorphous nature, and prefers to include several plants of the Mantelli typenbsp;under the genus Thyrsopteris. Except in cases where the fructification has been preserved it is questionable whether the betternbsp;course would not be to retain the old name, and not introduce newnbsp;ones without trustworthy evidence. Fortunately some of thenbsp;specimens recently acquired by the British Museum show distinctnbsp;fertile segments, and thus enable us to refer the species with somenbsp;degree of certainty to its living representative; the character ofnbsp;this fructification lends no support to the suggested relationshipnbsp;between Thyrsopteris and 0. Mantelli.

The figures of Thyrsopteris insignis^ show a striking resemblance to 0. Mantelli, but in the larger specimens there appears a certainnbsp;difference of habit, and, in addition to this, Fontaine refers to somenbsp;other differences in detail. His figures of the variety angustipennis'^nbsp;would at once be taken for 0. Mantelli, were it not that the rachisnbsp;is not winged and that other points of divergence are insisted on.nbsp;The same reference has been made by Velenovsky® to Thyrsopterisnbsp;in the case of ferns which must now be included under the genus

In a recent paper by Hathorst,® referred to in the list of synonyms, we find the statement that Sphenopteris Mantelli will

' Potomac Flora, p. 123.

2 lUA. p. 128.

® Ibid. pi. xliii. figs. 1-3.

^ Ibid. pi. xlii. fig. 3 ; pi. xliii. fig. 2.

® Abh. k. bolim. Ges. Wiss. vol. ii. 1888, p. 10, ® Loc. cit, p. öSi

ONTCHIOPSIS.

become Onychiopsis Manteïli; this change being a necessary consequence of the discovery by Yokoyama of fertile pinnae in Onychiopsis elongata (Geyl.), a Japanese plant very closely allied tonbsp;the Western 0. MantelU. Previous to Yokoyama’s important papernbsp;in the Journal of the Imperial University of Japan, in which thenbsp;generic name Onychiopsis is first proposed, a very similar fernnbsp;¦with fertile segments had been figured by Yelenovsky, from thenbsp;Cenomanian beds of Bohemia, under the name Thyrsopterisnbsp;capsulifera-,'^ these species, as Nathorst remarks, must also passnbsp;into the newer genus. These discoveries of such characteristicnbsp;Onychium-Yike fructifications enable us to include under Yokoyama’s genus a group of plants previously referred to Sphenopteris,nbsp;Thyrsopteris, Bicksonia, etc., and, at the same time, afford valuablenbsp;evidence as to the existence of an Onychium type of fem in Uppernbsp;Mesozoic times in England, North Germany, Bohemia, Japan, andnbsp;several other districts.

Finally, the same species has recently been recorded by Engelhardt from the Cenomanian of Niederschöna; unfortunatelynbsp;Ho 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 ofnbsp;considerable interest.

In the diagnosis of the species reference has been made to the characters of the fertile pinnae, which will be more fully dealt withnbsp;in the descriptions of such examples as occur in the collectionsnbsp;(V. 1069, V. 2151, V. 2159, V. 2159«). Having found the fertilenbsp;specimens of this well-known species I endeavoured to determinenbsp;¦what genus of recent ferns might best be taken as the nearestnbsp;living representative; the two genera Onychium, Kaulf., andnbsp;Oryptogramme, H. Br., appeared to come nearest to the fossilnbsp;forms, but of the two the former showed a more intimate resemblance.

No distinct traces of sporangia have been detected in the fossil species, and the comparison between Onychium and Onychiopsisnbsp;ihlantelli is, therefore, based on the general habit of the fertilenbsp;fronds and the form of the sporangiferous pinnules. Whilst still innbsp;doubt as to how far the evidence at command warranted a change

' Yelenovsky, loc. cit. pi. i. figs 6-12.

* Ann. géol. vol. viii. 1892-93, p. 893.

ONYCniOPSIS.

of name, I found that Yokoyama' had figured and described the same kind of fertile pinnae in a Japanese “ Jurassic ” fern verynbsp;closely allied to the European Onychiopm MantelU; but in hisnbsp;description of the Japanese species, OnyoMopsis elongata (Geyl.),nbsp;there is no reference made to Brongniart’s species. He comparesnbsp;his fertile specimens to the same recent genera already referred to,nbsp;Onychium, Kaulf., and Cryptogramme, B. Br., and on the strengthnbsp;of the strong likeness to the former he founds his new genus,nbsp;Onyehiopsis. There is such an exceedingly intimate connectionnbsp;between Yokoyama’s species and our English specimens, that Inbsp;have no hesitation in following the suggestion previously madenbsp;by Yathorst, and altering the well-known Sphempteru MantelU,nbsp;Brong., to Onychiopteris MantelU (Brong.), thus substituting for anbsp;provisional generic name one which recognizes the botanic affinitynbsp;of the Wealden species.

V. 2168. PI. II. Eig. 1.

A very fine specimen, and much larger than any hitherto figured of this species. It shows very clearly the general habit of thenbsp;tripinnate frond, but the details are not clearly defined. Length ofnbsp;frond 18 cm., breadth about 12 cm. The resemblance of some partsnbsp;of this specimen to Heer’s figures of Sphenopteris mliensis hasnbsp;already been alluded to; there is also a distinct agreement betweennbsp;the pinnee and the fragment figured by Tate from South Africa asnbsp;lt;S. antipodum. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2151a. PL III. Eig. 1.

In this specimen we have an exceedingly delicate (?) frond which, on a smaller scale, repeats the characters of the species asnbsp;represented in V. 2168, PI. II. Eig. 1. The marked difference innbsp;size led me to consider the advisability of instituting a variety,nbsp;0. MantelU, var. minor, but such a course would merely serve tonbsp;multiply terms, and would not be supported by any charactersnbsp;of trustworthy value as regards natural affinity. A difference innbsp;size, although strongly marked, is not a character to be lightlynbsp;insisted on as a basis for a species or variety when we are dealingnbsp;with fragments of fossil plants. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

* Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 26, pi. ii. figs. 1-3.

ONYCHXOPSIS. 49

Ecclesbourne.

Presented by F. Rujford, JEsy., 1885.

V. 2151. PI. III. Pig. 2.

V. 2159. PI. IlI.Pig. 3,and\Voodciit, Pig. 4, p. 50. .V. 2159lt;;. Woodcut, Pig. 5, p. 50.

In PI. III. Pig. 2 (V. 2151) we have portions of pinnas showing all the characteristics of Onychiopsis Mantelli. At a the lowernbsp;part of a pinna is preserved with the axis prolonged, and bearingnbsp;alternately disposed narrow ovate appendages; these appendagesnbsp;must be regarded as fertile segments of the pinna. There is anbsp;gradual transition seen from the sterile to the fertile part in thenbsp;right-hand fragment shown in Pig. 2lt;ï. In the same Pigure, at b,nbsp;the terminal portion of a fertile pinna is more perfectly preserved,nbsp;and here the distal end of the axis has the characteristic serratenbsp;form of the tip of an ordinary sterile frond.

In PI. III. P’ig. 4 (V. 1069) three fertile axes are shown; these, if taken alone, would doubtless be referred to a position farnbsp;removed from Onychiopsis Mantelli, but if we compare them withnbsp;the terminal portions of the pinnse of Pig. 2 (V. 2151), there cannbsp;te no doubt as to their real nature. At the tip of the right-handnbsp;axis the serrate character is readily seen, as previously noticed innbsp;Pi. III. Pig. 25, but this is rather too small to be distinct in thenbsp;figure. The specimen (V. 1069) shown in Pig. 4 affords strongnbsp;proof of the intimate relationship between 0. Mantelli andnbsp;0. elongata (Geyl.), as figured by Geyler.^

The details of the fertile segments are best seen in PI. III. Pig. 3 (V. 2159); three of the segments are enlarged Si times in thenbsp;Woodcut, Pig. 4 (p. 50).

In the Woodcut, Pig. 5, four segments of another specimen are also enlarged 3^- times; these are somewhat shorter and show anbsp;touch more distinct median line. Compare with these figuresnbsp;Yokoyama’s figure of 0. elongata there is a close agreement, asnbsp;regards the fertile segments. Of. also Velenovsk^s figure ofnbsp;Onychiopsis {Thyrsopteris of Velenovsky) capsulifera, Vel.®

' Palseontographica, vol. xxiv. pi. xxxi. fig. 5. 2 Yokoyama, loc. cit. pi. ii. fig. 4d.

2 Velenovsky, loc. cit. pi. i. fig. 10.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

An examination witli a low magnifying power enables us to describe the fertile segments as swollen, narrow, ovate bodies,nbsp;often prolonged at the apex into a delicate awn-like termination;nbsp;with rugose surfaces, a thin flattened margin, and occasionallynbsp;a longitudinal median depression. The roughness of the surfacenbsp;on further enlargement, e.g. Fig. 4, resolves itself in some of thenbsp;better specimens into small circular areas, which probably marknbsp;the position of sporangia.

Fertile segments of Onychwpsis ManteUi (Brong.).

Fro. 4 (V. 2159). nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Fro. 5 (V. 2169«).

Enlarged 3^ times. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Enlarged 3j times.

Among recent ferns there can be little doubt that Onychium, comes nearest to 0. ManteUi in the form of the fertile segments.nbsp;The sporangia are clustered together in oval sori covered by annbsp;indusium, and often prolonged apically into a delicate appendage.nbsp;The circular areas referred to in the fossil no doubt indicatenbsp;sporangia, and the median groove seen in some cases, if not annbsp;accident of preservation, may correspond to a similarly situatednbsp;depression in the sori of Onychium. The fiat and thin marginnbsp;in all probability corresponds to the flattened indusium border iunbsp;the recent genus. Fée’s figures of Onychium ^ show very clearlynbsp;the character of the fertile pinnules. Some specimens of Onychiumnbsp;auratum, Kaulf., in the Botanical Department Herbarium of thenbsp;British Museum show fertile segments strikingly similar in formnbsp;to those of the 'W’ealden fern; in the recent species the arrangement of these sporangiferous segments is looser and less compactnbsp;and regular than those shown in PL III. Figs. 1 and 2. The recent

' Fee, Genera Filicum, pi. vii. c.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

specimens also show a similar passage from the fertile part of a pinna to a terminal serrate portion, as represented in the fossilnbsp;specimens, PI. III. Pigs. 2-4. Onychium Japonioum, Kunze, alsonbsp;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 spitenbsp;of the fact that we are unable to decide how far the sporangianbsp;support this reference to the Polypodiaeea.

Fertile fronds of Cryptogramme crispa, R. Br., also approach fairly closely in appearance to those of 0. MantelU, hut the likenessnbsp;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 Sphenopterisnbsp;MantelU at Quinta-do-Leiriao,i and other localities in Portugal;nbsp;he considers that the fructification agrees most closely with thatnbsp;of PavaUia, especially P. gibberosa, Sw.’* My thanks are due tonbsp;the Marquis of Saporta for some further details as to the Mesozoicnbsp;flora of Portugal which he has very kindly communicated to me.nbsp;In a letter recently received (December 30, 1893), he states hisnbsp;Opinion that the reference of Sphenopteris MantelU to the recentnbsp;genus PavaUia seems to he more natural than that of Tokoyama,nbsp;i^ho refers the closely-allied species, S. elongata, to Onychium; atnbsp;the same time Saporta does not consider the question as definitelynbsp;Settled. In the forthcoming monograph on the Mesozoic flora ofnbsp;Portugal we shall have plates and detailed descriptions, which willnbsp;ouable us to consider more fully the rival claims of PavaUia andnbsp;(Onychium as to which is the most nearly allied genus to the widelynbsp;flistributed Wealden species. Meanwhile, I do not wish to alternbsp;®iy opinion that the evidence afforded by the English specimensnbsp;distinctly in favour of the substitution of Onychiopsis fornbsp;Sphenopteris, as expressing the most probable relation of the fossilnbsp;fern to the genus Onychium.

V. 2189. Woodcut, Fig. 6.

This specimen, with several others, e.g. V. 2188, V. 2314», etc., probably represents part of a rhizome of 0. MantelU. The surface

’ Rev. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, p. 272.

^ I am unable to detect in fertile fronds of Bavallia gibberosa any distinct resemblance to the fossil form.

52 ONTCHIOPSIS.

of the repeatedly branched stem is covered with small scaly structures, reminding one of the rhizome of the Hare’s-foot fern.nbsp;Some of the specimens are larger than that shown in the Figure,nbsp;hut are not so clearly preserved; in all cases there occur fragmentsnbsp;of 0. Mantelli fronds in close association with the branched scalynbsp;structures. Ecclesboume.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Evfford Coll.

V. 709. Kachis shown very clearly. Tilgate Forest.

Purchased.

V. 723. This fragment looks very like the terminal portion of a fertile frond or pinna. Cf. Yokoyama, loc. eit. pi. ii. fig. 4nbsp;(0. elongata). Ecclesboume.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 1069a. Distinct rachis. This specimen shows some pinnae with long close-set pinnules very similar to those of 0. elongata.nbsp;Cf. V. 2371, PI. II. Fig. 3. CD Thyrsopteris mtorophylla,nbsp;Fontaine, loc. cit. pi. xlv.; also T. sp., pi. xliii. Near Hastings.

Rufford Coll.

V. 1069J. Ehizome with associated fragments of pinnae. Eccles-hourne. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2151lt;j. Yery similar to V. 2151, PI. III. Fig. 2.

V. 21515. Portion of a well-preserved frond. Ecclesboume.

Rufford Coll.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

V. 2188. A much, branched, and spreading rhizome, with its surface covered with small depressions representing the points ofnbsp;attachment of scales; in some places there is a carbonaceousnbsp;covering preserved. As usual with specimens of this kind therenbsp;are associated fragments of 0. Mantelli pinnse. This form ofnbsp;rhizome resembles that which is characteristic of some recentnbsp;Davallias, and is more spreading than the usual form met with innbsp;species of Onyehium. Such differences, however, in the nature ofnbsp;the stems need not be looked upon as an argument of very greatnbsp;Weight in questions of generic affinity, when Mesozoic and Eecentnbsp;ferns are compared. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Purchased 1839.

V. 2231. Ehizome fragments with scaly surface markings, and on the same specimen portions of fronds. Cf. Woodcut, Fig. 6,nbsp;p. 52, V. 2189. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2235. Part of a spreading rhizome with less clearly preserved leaf fragments. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2241(7. Several well-preserved sterile pinnse and portions of sterile fronds on a large slab. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2314. Fragments of ciroinately rolled fern fronds, one much More perfect than the others. There are also several pieces ofnbsp;rhizome-like structures, some showing the characteristic scalynbsp;appendages. On the same slab of sandstone occur fragments ofnbsp;what may be 0. Mantelli, but they are very indistinct andnbsp;doubtful. I have included this specimen under the head ofnbsp;0. Mantelli, although there is no absolute proof that the variousnbsp;fragments really belong to that fern. Cf. Schenk, Palaeontographioa,nbsp;quot;^ol. xix. pi. XXX. figs. 4 and 5, also vol. xxiii. pi. xxvi. fig. 2.

V. 2314(7. Probably a rhizome with the basal portions of petioles attached ; shows the rough scaly surface. Ecclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2348. Eachis clearly preserved, 12-5 cm. long. Somewhat less compact in habit than most examples of the species. Ecoles-l)ourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

V. 2369. Ehizome fragments with leaf-stalks attached; also pieces of pinnse. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

54 ONYCHIOPSIS.

V. 2616. Under this number there are two specimens of a coarser form of 0. Mantelli. Sussex.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BecMes Coll.

7354. Two small specimens (one without a registered number, but probably the reverse of 7354), which closely resemble somenbsp;fragments figured by Mantell ^{1 2} and Brongniart.® Tilgate Forest.

Mantell Coll.

8390. This agrees closely with Mantell, loo. oil. pi. xx. fig. 2, and Brongniart, loc. oil. pi. xlv. fig. Ta. It is possible that thenbsp;figured specimen was the reverse piece of the Museum example.nbsp;Tilgate Forest.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

32593. Shows a prominent rachis projecting from the surface

Tilgate Forest.

38367. Part of a pinna. This specimen bears a certain resemblance to that figured by Stokes and Webb,® pi. xlvi. fig. 7, and reproduced in Mantell’s “ Geol. S.E. England,” and in Brongniart’snbsp;“Hist. vég. foss.” There are, however, distinct differencesnbsp;between the specimen and the figures referred to, which compelnbsp;me to merely suggest the possibility of the Museum specimennbsp;being the reverse piece of Stokes and Webb’s original. Tilgatenbsp;Forest.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

38372. In all probability this is the type specimen of MantelTs Sphenopteris Sillimani, figured in the “ Geol. S.E. England,”nbsp;p. 239. Hastings Sands, Sussex.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mantell Coll.

The following specimens do not call for any special mention. V. 14, Hastings, purchased; V. 724 and V. 726, Hastings, Dawsonnbsp;Coll.; V. 728 and V. 2232, Eoolesbourne, Rufford Coll.; V. 2615,nbsp;V. 2856, V. 2862, V. 2868 and V. 2876, near Hastings, BecMesnbsp;Coll.; 8084 and 8361, Tilgate Forest, Mantell Coll.; 52942 (severalnbsp;specimens with this registered number), Eoolesbourne, presented bynbsp;J. E. H. Peyton, Esy.

1

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;must. Geol. Sussex, pi. i. figs. 3«, Zb.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Hist. vég. foss. pi. xlv. fig. i.

® Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. i.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

2.—OnycMopsis elongata (Geyler).

1871. Sphenopteris G'ópperii, Schenk (in part), Palaeontographica, vol. xix.

pl. XXX. figs. 2 and 2« (not the other figures).

1877. Tkynoplerü elongata,, Geyler, Palseontographica, vol. xxiv. p. 221. 1883. Thyrsopteris elongata, Schenk, Bichthofen’s China, vol. iv. p. 263,nbsp;pl. liv. fig. 1.

1886. DicJcsonia elongata, Yokoyama, Buil. Geol. Soc. Japan, vol. i. No. 1, p. 5.

1889. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Thyrsopteris rarinerris, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 124-, pl. xxvi.

figs. 6 and 7; pl. xliii. figs. 4-6; pl. xUv. figs. 1, 2 and 5; pl. xlix. fig. 2; pl. clxix. figs. 6 and 7.

1890. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Onyehiopsis elongata, Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii.

p. 27, pl. ii. figs. 1-3; pl. iii. fig. 6(^; pl. xii. figs. 9 and 10. 1890. Onyehiopsis elongata, Nathorst, Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. math.-nat. Cl.nbsp;vol. Ivii. p. 55.

Type. Sterile and fertile portions of frond.

The species, instituted by Geyler from specimens found in the Trovinee of Kaga, Japan, is thus defined^{1 2}: —

“ Th. fronde bi-tripinnata, pinnis pinnulisque elongatis, pinnulis mferioribus imprimis longissimis; pinnulis sterilibus crenatis seunbsp;Piunatifidis in apicem sensim protractis, lobis obtusiusculis, pinnulisnbsp;fertilibus eodem modo valde elongatis, involucris breviter stipitatis,nbsp;91’alibus seu ? rotundatis.”

The few fragments in the Museum collections referred to this species add nothing to the definitions given by Geyler andnbsp;Yokoyama; the latter had the more perfect material at hisnbsp;disposal, and his diagnosis may therefore be reproduced verbatim.

“Prond slender,** bi-tripinnated; sterile pinnae alternate or rarely opposite, elongated, their length rapidly increasing towardsnbsp;the lower part of the frond; pinnules alternate, acutely directednbsp;forward, lanceolate or linearly-lanceolate, entire or lobed, or evennbsp;pinnately parted; lobes or partitions acute at apex and acutelynbsp;directed forward just like the pinnules themselves. Venationnbsp;obsolete, secondary veins simple, each going into a lobe. Fertilenbsp;pinnules elongated, with a linear terminal sorus on both sides ofnbsp;fhe midrib.”

Geyler compares his species with some previously described and figured by Heer under , the generic name Thyrsopteris, from East

1

1 Palmontographica, vol. xxiv. p. 224.

2

Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. p. 27.

ONYCHIOPSIS.

Siberia and Amurland, and considers the resemblance close enough to justify the inclusion, of the Japanese species in the same genus.nbsp;The resemblance between the fertile axis of 0. elongata, figured bynbsp;Geyler, to those of 0. MantelU (V. 1069, PI. III. Pig. 4) hasnbsp;already been referred to.

In Eichthofen’s “ China ” Schenk figures some portions of a frond from Japan, without any more exact locality, which henbsp;places with Geyler’s species. Most probably, as Schenk points out,nbsp;this specimen belongs to the common Japanese type, 0. elongatanbsp;(Geyl.).

Schenk’s figure of Sphenopterk Göpperti, referred to in the synonomy, seems to me indistinguishable from 0. elongata. Cf.nbsp;Schenk, Palmontographica, vol. xix. pi. xxx. fig. 2, and PI. II.nbsp;Pig. 2 of this Catalogue.

Yokoyama, in the first of the two papers referred to above, includes 0. elongata in his list of fossils under the name Bicksonianbsp;elongata; in his second and more important work, the genusnbsp;Ongchiopsis is substituted for the original name of Bicksonia. Henbsp;speaks of the species as the “ chief and characteristic fossil of thenbsp;Japanese Plora, being found in all of the fossil localities.” ¹ Fromnbsp;Fontaine’s long list of the species of Thyrsopteris I have includednbsp;one as a synonym of 0. elongata-, but it is not at all unlikely thatnbsp;several of the Potomac “ species” ought to be placed, if not in thenbsp;same species, at least very near to the Japanese form. In thenbsp;general remarks at the end of the Potomac Monograph we havenbsp;the following statement with regard to the genus Thyrsopteris: ^nbsp;“ It is true that, as no fructification has been found on these ferns,nbsp;they may be incorrectly placed in the genus Thyrsopteris.quot; “ Thenbsp;species,” says Fontaine, “most of them well characterized, numbernbsp;forty.” A number of them are described as possessing “the samenbsp;type of foliage as the Wealden ferns, B. MantelU, Brong.;nbsp;8. Göpperti, Hunker; 8. Cordai, Schenk; 8. plurinervia. Heer;nbsp;and 8. Gomesiana, Heer.” Lastly, we are told, “most of themnbsp;are new and unique. One or two have some resemblance tonbsp;Oolitic species, while a greater number may be grouped as belonging to the two Wealden types, 8. MantelU and jS. Göpperti.quot;

Here we have forty new species founded on sterile fronds, or

1

Zoc. eit. p. 28.

2 p. 120.

ONYCHIOPSIS.

portions, sometimes extremely minute portions, of fronds, and all placed in the recent genus Thyrsopteris. One would naturallynbsp;expect that this remarkable assemblage of species, called by thenbsp;name of a unique living genus, should rest on trustworthynbsp;evidence. The author of these forty species himself admits thatnbsp;no fructification has been found; surely this admission will henbsp;sufficient in itself to make botanists pause before they allow themselves to be lost in contemplation of the wealth of specific formnbsp;displayed by these Potomac plants, or to assume as an establishednbsp;fact that Kunze’s solitary species was represented in the Potomacnbsp;vegetation by such a host of ancestors. We may justly ask—Arenbsp;there differences enough, and sufficiently well marked, betweennbsp;these numerous varieties to warrant the result arrived at; and,nbsp;secondly, is the evidence at hand strong enough to justify the usenbsp;of the name Thyrsopteris, or even a modification of it whichnbsp;Would he suggestive of something not quite so certain and wellnbsp;founded ?

To the first question I am strongly of opinion that the answer is a decided negative. It must be admitted that my evidence isnbsp;entirely based on an examination of Fontaine’s figures and descriptions, and has not the weight of testimony derived from an actualnbsp;inspection of the specimens themselves. To the second question,nbsp;the admission that no trace of a fertile pinna or pinnule has beennbsp;recognized is, I am disposed to think, a sufficient reply. It wouldnbsp;be a presumption and beyond my province, to attempt to describenbsp;how many species are represented by the “ Thyrsopteris'quot;’ specimensnbsp;found in the Potomac beds ; but it is at least possible to indicate anbsp;few of those cases in which the determinations of Fontaine are notnbsp;such as I feel able to accept.

The species T. Virginica^ is founded on specimens of the “pinnae of ultimate order,” and the fragments figured might easily benbsp;included in some of the thirty-nine remaining forms without thenbsp;unneeessary institution of an additional species. Another instancenbsp;of the same kind is afforded by T. alata, which depends for itsnbsp;existence on part of a pinna apparently indistinguishable fromnbsp;Meehiana.

In describing T. rarinervis ® Fontaine refers to it as “ one of the

1 Loc. cit. p. 120, pi. xiiv. fig. 1. * Loe. cit. p. 123.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

Sphenopteris MantelU type,” and adds: “It resembles more than any other described fossil Thyrsopteris elongata, Geyler.” If wenbsp;look at Fontaine’s pi. xxvi. figs. 6 and 7, and compare withnbsp;Geyler’s pi. xxxi. fig. 4, it is well-nigh impossible to agree thatnbsp;these are different species, to say nothing of distinct genera ; or,nbsp;again, it is difficult to separate, on good grounds, fig. 2, pi. xliv.nbsp;of Fontaine from Onyehiopsis elongata as figured by Yokoyama,nbsp;pi. ii. fig 2. It is true that Fontaine’s specimens show in somenbsp;cases a stouter rachis than occurs in the Japanese examples.

There seems to be but slender evidence in support of T. Meekiana, var. angustiloha. Cf. 0. elongata] e.g. Fontaine,nbsp;pi. xliii. fig. 8, and Yokoyama, pi. ii. fig. 2.

The species of Onyehiopsis described by Yelenovsky,^{1 2} referred to below, should be compared with T. crenata, pi. xxxix. fig. 1,nbsp;Fontaine, and Velenovskjf, pi. i. fig. 9.

In T. densifolia, Font., we have a fern which seems to be very similar to Yokoyama’s fig. 2, pi. ii. of 0. elongata; the differencenbsp;consists in the somewhat broader pinnules of the former. Thenbsp;figures of T. densifolia suggest a form of plant identical with thatnbsp;represented by T. Meekiana, Font., e.g. pi. xxxviii. fig. 3.

Another of these “ Thyrsopteris” species, T. microphylla, is referred by Fontaine to the “ Sphenopteris Mantelli type,” andnbsp;the figures of this species appear to me illustrations of the plantnbsp;included under the name T. angustifolia ; both come near to 0.nbsp;elongata. Compare also T. pinnatifida, Font., pi. li. fig. 2, etc.,nbsp;with 0. elongata, and with the latter species T. incequipinnata,nbsp;Font.

T. elliptica, Font,, is described as “not very close to any previously desci-ibed fossil; ” ^ there appears, indeed, to be a rathernbsp;close resemblance between the figures of this species, pi. xlvi.nbsp;fig. 1, and T. densifolia, Font., pi. xl. fig. 4. In addition to thenbsp;two species T. Virginioa and T. alata, to which allusion has heennbsp;made as examples of specific determinations which are withoutnbsp;such claim as entitles them to serious recognition as well-definednbsp;types, a third may be mentioned, T. heterophylla. Font., which doesnbsp;not appeal more strongly for acceptance, if we may judge by thenbsp;figured fragments, pi. Iviii. figs. 3 and 3«.

1

• nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Loc. eit. p. 10, pi. i. figs. 6-12.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 133.

ONTCHIOPSIS.

Although not included under the present species, 0. elongata, there is a plant which must he briefly alluded to as an example ofnbsp;the same genus, and probably very closely allied to Geyler’s species.nbsp;In 1888 Velenovsky contributed an important communication,nbsp;apparently overlooked by some recent writers, on “ Die Famenbsp;der bohmischen Kreideformation ”; he includes in his list ofnbsp;Cenomanian ferns from the Peruoer beds a new species, Thyrso-pteris capsulifera,^ and compares it to T. Maakiana, Heer, andnbsp;especially to 0. elongata (Ge}der). Several figures are givennbsp;both of sterile and fertile pinnae, and the figure of the fertilenbsp;axis, pi. i. fig. 10, represents what is obviously the same typenbsp;of fertile pinna as Geyler’s pi. xxxi. fig. 5 and PI. III. Figs. 2-4nbsp;of this Catalogue. Possibly the differences which are shown innbsp;the figures by Velenovsky, Geyler, and Yokoyama, betweennbsp;T. capsuUfera and T. elongata, are hardly of sufficient importancenbsp;to render a second specific name necessary; the chief divergencenbsp;being the greater breadth of the ultimate segments in most ofnbsp;the Bohemian specimens.

Hathorst,^ in calling attention to this paper by Velenovsky, notes the fact that the species T. eapsulifera possesses fructificationnbsp;exactly like that of 0. elongata, and must, therefore, be includednbsp;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 speciesnbsp;0. Mantelli and 0. elongata; the coarser forms of the former comenbsp;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 tonbsp;include even those forms with larger and broader pinnules in thenbsp;species 0. Mantelli; for the present, at least, there seem to benbsp;good reasons for referring such specimens as the one figured,nbsp;fl. II. Fig 2, to Geyler’s species.

V. 2371. PI. II. Fig. 2.

In this Figure are represented the best of several fragments which occur on the same piece of rock. On the same specimennbsp;are some badly preserved fragments of Cladophlelis Dunkerinbsp;(Schimp.).

1 Abk. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. vol. ii. 1888, p. 10.

* Denkschr. k. Ak. Wiss. matb.-nat. Cl. vol. Ivii. p. 55.

ACKOSIICHOPTEIIIS.

Cf. Thyrsopteris Meekiana, var. angustiloha, Font., pl. Iri. etc.; also Sphenopteris Manteïli, Schenk, Palseontographiea, vol. xix.nbsp;pl. XXV. fig. 6; Sphenopteris Oöpperti, Schenk, loc. cit. pl. xxx.nbsp;fig. 2; and Aspleniuni Dicksonianum, Heer, from the Kome hedsnbsp;of Greenland, Fl. foss. Arot. iii. pl. i. Eccleshourne.

Rufford Coll.

Genus ACROSTICHOPTERIS, Fontaine.

[Potomac Flora, TJ.S. Geol. Surv. Monograph, xy. 1889, p. 106.]

Fontaine has instituted this genus for certain fossil ferns “ peculiar to the Potomac formation ” ; he considers that it standsnbsp;nearest in most features to Acrostichum among recent genera.

The genus is thus described':—

“Fronds, probably creeping, with very long, often flexuous, raohises, which seem to have been more or less succulent; pinnaenbsp;going off obliquely, long and apparently slender; ultimate pinnaenbsp;or pinnules sub-opposite to alternate, comparatively short, andnbsp;cut down nearly to the rachis into more or less cuneate-flabellatenbsp;pinnules or primary segments. These are divided generally intonbsp;cuneate-flabellate segments, which in turn are separated intonbsp;oblong segments ending in oblong, or ovate-obtuse, or acutenbsp;teeth j pinnules decurrent and forming a wing; nerves slendernbsp;but distinct, flabellately diverging, forking dichotomously, andnbsp;ending in the teeth; fructification occurring on the basal segmentsnbsp;of the pinnules, in the upper portions of the frond on the uppernbsp;one alone, in the lower portions on the upper and lower ones;nbsp;the fructified segments, which on the lower side are covered bynbsp;the nakèd sori, and seen from the upper side, especially whennbsp;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.nbsp;Perhaps the best figure is that of a fertile pinnule of Aerosti-chopteris longipennis, Font., pl. clxxi. fig. 7«. Fontaine concludesnbsp;that “ the genus in the naked sori is like Folypodium, but in

* Potomac Flora, p. 106.

AOEOSTICHOPTEEIS. 61

most features stands nearest to Acrostichum, much resembling the section Rhipidopteris. In this latter, however, the fructificationnbsp;is borne on separate pinnules. If we place the fructified pinnulesnbsp;of Rhipidopteris as basal segments on the sterile ones, we havenbsp;a form strikingly like Acrostichopteris. The genus has also somenbsp;resemblance to MarsileaR^

It is doubtful if the generic name Acrostichopteris be the most suitable for such specimens as the English rocks have afforded.nbsp;In Fontaine’s specimens there is some evidence as to fructificationnbsp;characters, but in the few fragments from Ecclesbourne therenbsp;are no traces of fertile leaves. The similarity, however, betweennbsp;the American and English specimens appears to be exceedinglynbsp;close, and the habit represented by the various species is not onenbsp;which occurs very commonly among recent genera.

In the recent species Acrostichum peltatum, Sw.,'^ the sterile leaves have the same deeply divided pinnules with narrow segmentsnbsp;as those of A. Ruffordi, but in the latter form there are severalnbsp;pairs of pinnules attached to one axis; the difference in thenbsp;arrangement of the fertile pinnules has already been alluded tonbsp;by Prof. Fontaine.

It is diificult to determine whether such specimens as those described below should be spoken of as pinnae of a frond with anbsp;creeping raohis, or as the pinnate leaves of a creeping rhizome,nbsp;as in Acrostichum peltatum. I have placed the genus in the Poly-podiacecc on the strength of Fontaine’s conclusions, drawn fromnbsp;much more complete material than the British Museum affords.nbsp;The evidence as to family characters is best seen in the figuresnbsp;of American specimens; it is by no means all that could be desired.

1.—Acrostichopteris Ruifordi, sp. nov.

Type. Pinnae and portions of rachis. In the British Museum. Main rachis probably creeping, bipinnate, pinnae linear; pinnulesnbsp;alternate, rhomboidal or cuneate, deeply divided into narrownbsp;cuneate segments with acute or obtuse teeth. Venation of thenbsp;Ctenopteridis type. No fructification preserved.

' Potomac Flora, p. 106.

* Fee, Genera Filicnm, pi. ii.

CTAIHBACE^.

This species comes very near to AcrosticJiopteris dennfolia,^ Font., but differs in the shape of the pinnules ; in A. Euffordinbsp;they are less orbicular in form, but on the other hand shorternbsp;than in another Potomac species, A. longipennisj^ Font.

V. 2327. PI. VI. Fig. 3.

A single sterile pinna, or possibly a pinnate frond. The repeatedly forked veins well shown, with their single branches in the narrowly linear ultimate segments. Ecclesbourne. RufforA Coll.

V. 2327fl! Fragments of pinnae, also what is probably part of the main rachis of the frond showing the point of attachment ofnbsp;one pinna. Close to this portion of the rachis there is a flexuousnbsp;structure which at first sight appears to be a continuation of thenbsp;former piece; the two are, however, at slightly different levels innbsp;the ironstone matrix, but in all probability both may be regardednbsp;as fragments of the rachis; on the second piece there are here andnbsp;there the beginnings of several lateral branches which may possiblynbsp;be roots. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ruffurd Coll.

Family CYATHEACE^.

The oblique annulus and the transverse dehiscence of the sporangia are the chief distinguishing features of this family.

The genus Matonidium, Schenk, may probably be regarded as a quot;Wealden representative of the recent genus Matonia, E.. Br.; thenbsp;latter, according to Baker,^ should be placed in a tribe by itself,nbsp;and not united with the Cyatheaceco.

Genus MATONIDIUM, Schenk.

[Palaeontographica, vol. xix. 1871, p. 219.]

This genus, founded on specimens of sterile and fertile fronds from the Wealden of Jlorth Germany, is thus defined;—

“Folia sterilia et fertilia conformia flabellato-pinnata, segmenta

' Potomac Flora, p. 107, ph xoiv. fig. 4 ; pi. olxx. fig. 11, etc. * Ibid. p. 107, pi. clxx. fig. 10 ; pi. clxxi. figs. 1, 5 and 7.

^ Annals Hot. vol. v. 1890-91, p. 192.

MATONIDITJM.

pinnatifida. Nervi primarii excurrentes, secundarii angulo subrecto egredientes dichotomi, ramuli simplioes. Sori biseriales oblonginbsp;indusiati. Sporangia receptaculo in ramulo affixa. Annulusnbsp;obliquus.”

When this fossil genus was first instituted by Schenk there Was only one species recorded of the recent Matonia, and thenbsp;characteristic and peculiar habit of that species, M. pectinata, Br.,nbsp;Suggested the term MMonidium for fronds of similar form. Itnbsp;is important, in speaking of this similarity of form and of thenbsp;Matonia-Viks habit, to remember the recent addition of a secondnbsp;species, M. sarmentosa, Baker,¹ which has an entirely differentnbsp;habit to that which has always been regarded as typical of thenbsp;genus. Baker’s figure of this new species shows in a strikingnbsp;manner the danger of trusting to sterile portions of fronds innbsp;the determination of generic affinity.

1.—Matonidium Gopperti (Ett.).

1843. Cycadites AUhausii, Danker, Progr. p. 7.

1846. Pecopteris AUhausii, Danker, Wealdenbildang, p. 5, pi. ii. fig. 2.

Pecopterispolydactyla, Danker, loc. cit. p. 5, pi. vii. fig. 4.

Pecopteris Conybeari, Danker, loc. cit. p. 7, pi. ix. figs. 8 and 8».

Alethopteris elegans, Danker, loc. cit. p. 8, pi. vii. fig. 7.

1849. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pecopteris polydactyla, Erongniart, Tableaa, p. 107.

Pecopteris Conybeari, Erongniart, loc. cit. p. 107.

Pecopteris AUhausii, Erongniart, loc. cit. p. 107.

Pecopteris elegans, Erongniart, loc. cit. p. 7.

1850. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pecopteris polydactyla, Unger, Gen. spec, plant, fosa. p. 177.

Pecopteris Conybeari, Unger, loc. cit. p. 177.

Pecopteris AUhausii, Unger, loc. cit. p. 176.

Alethopteris elegans, Unger, loc. cit. p. 147.

1852. Alethopteris Oopperti, Ettingshaasen, Abb. k.-k. geol. Reichs. vol. i.

Abtb. iii. No. 2, p. 16, pi. v.

1854. Alethopteris elegans, Morris, Erit. foss. p. 2.

1864. Pecopteris polydactyla, Leckenby, Qaart. Joarn. Geol. Soc. vol. xx.

p. 80, pi. xi. figs, la and 15.

1869. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Laccopteris Gopperti, Scbimper, Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 582, Atlas,

pi. XXX. figs. 5-8.

1870. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pecopteris AUhausii, Traatsehold, Noav. Mém. Soc. Nat. Moscoa,

vol. xiii. p. 28, pi. xix. figs. 3(7 and e.

? Pecopteris explanata, Traatsehold, loc. cit. p. 32, pi. xix. fig. 7.

1

Annals Eot. vol. v. 1890-91, p. 191, pi. xiv. (First described in Joam. hinn. Soc. vol. xxiv. 1888, p. 256.)

MATONIDITJM.

Matonidium Göpperü, Schenk, Palajontographioa, vol. xix. p. 219, pi. xxvii. figs. 6 and 6a; pi. xxYÜi. figs. 1 and 2; pi. xxx. fig. 3.

Matonidium Oöpperti, Schimper, loc. cit. vol. iii. p. 507.

Matonidium Oöpperti, Schenk, Palseontographica, vol. xxiii. p. 160, pi. xxvii. fig. 9.

Tecapteris polydactyla, Phillips, Geol. Yorks, p. 207.

P Pecopteris ceespitosa, Phillips, loc. cit. p. 207, fig. 20; pi. viii. fig. 10.

Alethopteris elegans, Dupont, Bull. Ac. Roy. Belg. vol. xlvi. sér. ii. p. 396.

Ptcopteris Comjbeari, Dupont, loc. cit. p. 396.

Matonidium Oöpperti, Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, p. 16, pi. XV. figs. 1-6.

Matonidium Oöpperti, Renault, Cours hot. foss. vol. iii. p. 76.

Matonidium Oöpperti, Schulze, Plor. suhhercyn. Kreid. p. 11.

Type. Large specimens of sterile and fertile segments. In the Berlin Collection.

The material in the British Museum is very much less perfect and more scanty than that at the disposal of Schenk ; we may,nbsp;therefore, quote his definition verbatim ; ^{1 2}

“ Folia petiolata flabellato-pinnata, segmenta hrevite petiolata pinnatifida, in foliis junioribus 5-6, in adultioribus usque quatuor-decim, amhitu linearia hasi et apice attenuata acuminata, adultanbsp;25 centim. longa, lacinise patentissimse altemoe vel suhoppositsenbsp;integrse, inferiora abbreviatse rotundatae, medium versus sensimnbsp;longiores, mediae oblongo-lanceolatae, summae breviores ovatae,nbsp;nervi primarii excurrentes, secundarii angulo suhreoto egredientesnbsp;dichotomi, ramuli simplices, sori hiseriales oblongi indusiati,nbsp;sporangia in ramulo afiixa, annulus ohliquus.”

Bunker’s figures of this species represent sterile portions of leaf segments; the differences in size led him to separate them asnbsp;distinct species.

I have decided to follow Leckenhy’s example^ with regard to the reference of the specimens from the Yorkshire Oolite to thenbsp;present species. A comparison of his figure, pi. ix. fig. la, andnbsp;Schenk’s pi. xxvii. fig. 9, Palaeontographica xxiii. leaves littlenbsp;doubt as to the specific identity of the two plants. Anothernbsp;Jurassic species, Pecopteris caspitosa, Phillips, appears to menbsp;inseparable from Matonidium, Oöpperti; compare especially wood-

1

1 Palaeontographica, vol. xix. p. 220.

2

Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. 1864, p. 80.

matonidiüm:.

cut 20, p. 207 of Phillips’ “ Geology of Yorkshire ” and Schenk, pi. xxviii. Paleeontographica, xix.

Trautschold figures from the Klin Sandstone several pieces of fronds which undoubtedly come very near the quot;Wealden species.

His figures of Pecopteris Althausii, Dunk., agree with Schenk’s of the North German plant, except in a slight difference innbsp;size.

Possibly Pecopteris explanata, Traut., should be kept as a distinct species, hut this should be referred to Matonidium; asnbsp;regards habit this plant is very close to Velenovsky’s fig. 3, pi. ii.nbsp;of Microdictyon Dunheri (Schenk).' Another Russian species,nbsp;Pecopteris pacliyoarpa, Traut.,^{1 2} should also be removed to Schenk’snbsp;genus, but probably its straighter and less falcate pinnules justifynbsp;a distinct specific name.

Schenk’s later figures of the species throw further light on the character of this fern, and show, amongst other things, that thenbsp;shape of the pinnules varies considerably in different specimens.nbsp;The same variation in the size and form of the ultimate segmentsnbsp;IS shown in Heer’s figures of this species from Portugal; possiblynbsp;some of his specimens should be referred to another species, but itnbsp;IS very difficult to decide what limits to attach to the variation innbsp;size in a single species.

In discussing the position of this species, Schenk notes the close correspondence of the sori and the individual sporangia withnbsp;the Cyatheacem type, and this similarity as regards the fertilenbsp;segments is confirmed by the apparently identical habit of thenbsp;frond of Matonia pectinata, Br. The sori of the recent speciesnbsp;are more circular in form than in Matonidium Oopperti, where theynbsp;appear to be elliptical; compare e.g. Hooker and Baker,² pi. i.nbsp;fig. 8, and Schenk, Palmontographica, xix. pi. xxviii. pi. xxviii.nbsp;figs. 2 and 2«.

V. 2218. Woodcut, Fig. 7.

Portions of several pinnae having to some extent the characters cf Claiophlelis Browniana (Dunk.), but the form of the fructification and the position of the detached pieces on the matrix show

1

‘ Abh. k. böhtn. Ges. Wiss. vii. folge, vol. ii. 1888.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Trautschold, loc. oil. p. 30, pi. xix. figs. 6» and b.

2

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Synopsis Filicum, 1868.

MATONIBIUM.

their identity with Matonidhim. The position of the pinnae shows a gradual convergence towards a point of attachment.

The elliptical or oval sori are distinctly shown on the lower surface of the pinnules. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Eufford Coll.

V. 721. Eachis very prominent; some of the pinnules with sori. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Dawson Coll.

V. 2208. Very similar to V. 2218. Pieces of six pinnae. Note the gradual convergence towards the original point of attachment tonbsp;the stout rachis. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Eufford Coll.

V. 2211. Shows the convergence to a common point of attachment of imperfectly preserved pinnae. Ecclesbourne. Eujjord Coll.

V. 2216. Small fragments of ? fertile pinnae. Ecclesbourne.

Eufford Coll.

67

V. 2223. Woodcut, Fig. 8. Portions of several pinnse converging to a large rachis. Far inferior in preservation to Schenk’s figured specimens. Eoclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rujford Coll.

V. 2223. On this specimen is a fragment of a fertile pinna showing the position of the sori. Eoclesbourne. Rufford Coll.

V. 2737. The pinnules are larger than in the other specimens, more like those of Microdictyon in size, hut their shape is that ofnbsp;Matonidium.

Similar examples of size variation have been referred to in the figures of Schenk, Heer, and Trautschold. Eoclesbourne.

Rufford Coll.

V. 2175, V. 2175», V. 2178, V. 2205, V. 2384. Pinnules narrower than usual. Eoclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

10,827, 11,618. Tilgate Forest.

PEOTOPIEEIS.

Genus PROTOPTERIS, Presl.

[Sternberg, Flora der Vorwelt, Heft vü. 1838, p. 169.]

This generic name was applied hy Presl to a tree-fern stem which he had previously figured and described as Lepidodendronnbsp;punotatum ; the plants which he included under Protopteris arenbsp;compared to living members of the Cyaiheacem.

In Corda’s “Flora der Vorwelt” eight genera, including Protopteris and Tempskya, are grouped together in the family Protopteridece.

The genus Protopteris is thus defined by Corda, who considerably extends the earlier definition in Sternberg’s worker—

“ Caudex arboreus, extus nudus vel radioulis adventivis involutus. Cortex pulvinulis foliorum quaternariis spiraliternbsp;positis oblongis ornata; cicatrioibus foliorum medio depressis,nbsp;fasciculo vasorum centrali simplici hippoorepico continuo decoratis,nbsp;et infra fasciculis rotundis minutis disjunctis 6 vel 8, et supranbsp;fasoioulis tequalibus lateralibus vel nullis circumdatis. Radicul®nbsp;adventivae per totam superficiem distribute. Cortex medullosa.

Cylindrus lignosus clausus octangularis, angulis rotundatis. Liber externus in fasciculis anseformibus disjunctis distributus,nbsp;internus continuus ligno adnatus. Vagina vasorum tenuis.nbsp;Lignum tenue, radiis medullaribus tenuibus vel nullis peroursum;nbsp;vasis amplis sexangularibus scalareformibus. Medulla centralisnbsp;ampla, parenchymatosa.”

The most readily recognized characteristic of the genus is the horse-shoe form of the leaf-trace, as seen on the surface of thenbsp;petiole scars. Schenk points out that such a character as thisnbsp;cannot be regarded as very reliable in the determination of tree-fern sterns^; but, failing more trustworthy evidence, the patternnbsp;of the leaf-trace is certainly a very convenient feature in thenbsp;identification of fossil forms. Carruthers,® in his paper on anbsp;Lower Greensand Protopteris stem, is disposed to agree withnbsp;Brongniart and Göppert in attaching considerable importance tonbsp;tbe form of the petiole bundle.

' Flor. Vorwelt, p. 76.

^ Fosa. Pflanz. p. 46.

^ Geol. Mag. 1865, p. 484.

PEOTOPTEKIS.

We may briefly define ProtopUris as follows :—

Stems of tree-ferns characterized by a central vascular cylinder consisting of band-form bundles variously arranged. The surfacenbsp;of the central axis is covered by spirally arranged leaf-scarsnbsp;separated by, and occasionally embedded in, a mass of rmmntanbsp;and adventitious roots. The leaf-trace, as seen on the surface ofnbsp;the petiole scars, has a horseshoe-like form which presents certainnbsp;modifications in the pattern according to the species.

The genus appears to range from the Permian to the Lower Cretaceous.

Without following the example of Heer, Yelenovsk^, and Staub in adopting the generic name of Dicksonia, I have provisionallynbsp;placed Pfotopteris in the Cyatheacece on account of its resemblancenbsp;to Dicksonia antaretica, Labill.

1.—Protopteris Witteana, Schenk.

1871. Frotopteris Witteana, Schenk, Palaeoutographioa, vol. xix. p. 226, pi. XXX. figs. 6 and 6a.

1874. Frotopteris (?) Witteana, Schimper, Trait, pal. vég. vol. iü. p. 526.

1880. Frotopteris Witteana, Hosins and Von der Marck, PalseontograpMca, vol. xxvi. p. 206.

1883. Frotopteris Witteana, Eenanlt, Cours bot. foss. vol. iii. p. 75.

1890. Frotopteris Witteana, Staub, Foldt. Kozl, 1890, p. 230 (German text).

This species is thus defined by Schenk';—

“ Truncus arboreus erectus, inter pul vinos radicibus adventitiis vestitus, petiolorum pulvini oblongi spiraliter dispositi, cicatricesnbsp;ovales, fasciculus fibrevasalis sinuosus cornubus inflexis.”

Type. Portions of structureless stems. Collection of Obergerichts director Witte, Hanover.

The type specimen, from the Hastings Sands in the neighbourhood of Hanover, is described as being considerably compressed, with a length of 19 cm. and a breadth of 5 cm. The petiole scarsnbsp;O-re oval in form, and arranged in a fairly close spiral. The formnbsp;of the leaf-trace is distinctly shown in many of the leaf-bases;nbsp;between the latter are several scars marking the points of attachment of adventitious roots. Schenk’s specimen shows no structure;

Palffiontographica, vol. xix. p. 226.

MOTOPTEEIS.

the form of the leaf-trace being the chief characteristic on which the species was founded.

In the British Museum Collection there are three specimens which I have referred to Schenk’s species; two of these are simplynbsp;casts without any minute structure, hut the other is in a muchnbsp;better state of preservation and enables us to amplify the originalnbsp;diagnosis of the species.

Stem with a central axis consisting of band-form vascular bundles enclosing a fairly large pith; from these vascular platesnbsp;branches pass out to the petioles, and in a surface-view of a leafstalk base the leaf-trace is shown to present more or less clearlynbsp;the characteristic horse-shoe pattern.

The oval petiole soars are arranged fairly closely; towards the periphery of each is a single vascular bundle of the horse-shoenbsp;form, but differing from that of P. punctata in the absence of thenbsp;distinct constriction which occurs in each limb of the leaf-trace;nbsp;the free upper ends of the leaf-trace are distinctly curved inwards.nbsp;Sections of adventitious roots occur in the lower part of the petiolenbsp;scars. Between the leaf-bases there is a mass of filamentous tissue,nbsp;traversed here and there by irregularly disposed roots.

Before describing in detail the specimens of Protopteris Witteana in the National Collection, it should be pointed out that theynbsp;appear to differ in no very important characters from the widely-spread P. punctata. Possibly the Wealden specimens at presentnbsp;referred to the species instituted by Schenk, may eventually findnbsp;their proper place under P. punctata; but at present we maynbsp;regard the slight difference in the pattern of the leaf-trace bundlesnbsp;of the two forms as sufficient reason for the retention of Schenk’snbsp;Wealden species.

In Protopteris punctata, Sternb., we have one of the best known fossil tree-ferns. The species was first instituted by Presl for anbsp;plant previously figured and described by Sternberg as Lepido-dendron punctatum} Sternberg’s specimen was for some timenbsp;referred to as having been obtained from Bohemian rocks ofnbsp;Carboniferous age; another example of the same plant fromnbsp;Greenland was regarded by Heer, in the third volume of thenbsp;“ Plora fossilis Arctica,” as indicative of Carboniferous rocks. Itnbsp;was, however, shown by Krejci and Peistmantel that the coal-

Steruberg, I’lor. Vorwelt, Heft i. p. 20.

PEOTOPTEEIS.

bearing strata of Bohemia, from which Sternberg’s specimen was obtained, were of Cenomanian age, and this led Heer to correct hisnbsp;previous statement as to the age of the Disco Island plant bedsd

It is to Cotta® that we are indebted for the earliest information as to the minute structure of the genus Protopteris. In 1836 henbsp;described in detail the anatomy of a tree-fern stem, afterwardsnbsp;called P. Cotteana, which was found in a boulder in Saxony, butnbsp;considered to have originally come from Bohemia; this plantnbsp;agrees very closely with the common form P. punctata. Thenbsp;generic name Gaulopteris, Bindley and Hutton, is substituted fornbsp;Protopteris in Goppert’s “ Fossilen Farrnkrauter.” ® Carruthers*nbsp;also prefers Bindley and Hutton’s genus as being older than Brest’snbsp;Protopteris, and more suitable for such tree-fern stems. In Corda’snbsp;classic work ® Sternberg’s specimen is further described, and compared to the Cyatheaeece; the original name, P. punctata, beingnbsp;replaced by that of P. Sternlergii. The name Protopteris wasnbsp;originally given to a tree-fern stem possessing a well-definednbsp;character in the form of its leaf-trace bundle; on the other handnbsp;the generic term Gaulopteris was applied to a specimen on whichnbsp;no useful or precise definition could be founded.® If we do notnbsp;necessarily connect the name of Protopteris with botanical afiinity,nbsp;it is a useful term to retain as pointing to a form of fern stemnbsp;different to that for which Bindley and Hutton’s genus is retained.

In 1865 Carruthers’ published a description of a cylindrical sandstone cast of Protopteris punctata from the Upper Greensand ofnbsp;Dorsetshire; the form of the leaf-trace bundles is clearly shown innbsp;the original ® of Carruthers’ figure, and there can be no donbt of itsnbsp;identity with Sternberg’s Bohemian type. Unfortunately thenbsp;English specimen is entirely without internal structure.

The substitution of Piclcsonia for Protopteris by certain writers, such as Heer, Velenovsky, and Staub, has already been referred to;nbsp;the same generic name has also been used by Eenault for a fossilnbsp;fern-stem of Cretaceous age from the Ardennes.®

' Flor. foss. Arct. vol. vi. p. 24. N. Jakrb. 1836, p. 30, pi. i.

® p. 449. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;‘ Geol. Mag. 1865, p. 487.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;® Flor. Vorwült, p. 77.

® Bindley and Hutton, Foss. Flora, vol. i. pi. xlii.

® Zoe. eit. p. 484, pi. xiii.

® Specimen in the British Museum, registered number 39002. The plate illustrating Carruthers’ paper hardly does justice to this remarkably fine specimen.nbsp;® Cours bot. foss. vol. iii. p. 74.

PEOIOPTEEIS.

The following list of synonyms of Protopteris pxmctata shows, to some extent, the distribution of that characteristic type of tree-fernnbsp;in Lower Cretaceous times : how far we may consider this speciesnbsp;identical with, or very nearly allied to, the 'Wealden form isnbsp;difficult to determine.

Protopteris punctata, Sternb.

1820. lepidodendroH punotatum, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt, Heft i. p. 20, pi. vi. pt. viii. fig. 2.

1822. Filicites punctatus, Martiua, Denkschr. k. Baler, hot. Ges. vol. ii. Abth. 1. p. 130.

1825. Lepidodendron punctatum, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt, Heft iv. p. xii. 1828. Sigillaria punctata, Brongniart, Prodrome, p. 64.

1828. Sigillaria punctata, Brongniart, Hist. vég. foss. p. 421, pi. cxli.

1835. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Lepidodendron punctatum. Cotta, N. Jabrb. 1835, p. 326.

1836. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Caulopteris punctata, Goppert, Nova Acta Ac. Cses. Leop.-Car. vol.

xvii. (Suppl.), p. 449.

1838. Frotopteris punctata, Sternberg, Flor. Vorwelt, Heft vii. p. 170, pi. Ixv. figs. 1-3.

1845. Frotopteris Sternbergii, Corda, Flor. Vorwelt, p. 77, pi. xlviii.

1845. Frotopteris punctata, Unger, Syn. plant, foss. p. 107.

1848. Frotopteris punctata, Brown, Index Homencl. p. 1047.

1850. Frotopteris Sternbergii, Unger, Gen. spec, plant, foss. p. 194.

I860. Caidopterispunctata, Carruthers, Geol. Mag. p. 484, pi. xiii.

1866. Frotopteris Debeyi, Schliiter, Sitz. niederrbein. Ges. Bonn. p. 68. 1806. Caulopteris punctata, Eeuger, Ziva, p. 126.

1869. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frotopteris Sternbergii, Schiraper, Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 706,

Atlas, pi. lii. fig. 1.

1870. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frotopteris Sternbergii, Boemer, Geol. Oberschles. p. 300.

1872. Frotopteris Sternbergii, Feistmantel, Abb. k. bolim. Ges. Wiss. vi. Folg. vol. V. p. 26, pi. ii. fig. 5.

1875. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frotopteris punctata, Geinitz, PaloBontograpbica, vol.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;xx. p. 304.

1875. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frotopteris punctata. Heer, FI.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;foss.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Arct. vol. iii.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;p. 8, pi. v. figs.

1-2; pi. vi.

1880. Frotopteris punctata, Hosius and Von der Marok, Palarontographica, vol. xxvi. p. 205, pi. xliii. figs. 185-186.

1882. Ficksonia (Frotopteris) punctata. Heer, FI. foss. Arct. vol. vi. p. 24, pi. xlvii.

1882. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frotopteris punctata, Schmalhausen, Schrift. Kiew. nat. Ges, vol, vi.

pt. ii. p. 216, pi. viii.

1883. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frotopteris Sternbergii, Renault,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Coursnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;bot. foss. vol.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;iii. p. 75.

1888. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bicksonia punctata, Velenovsky,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Abb.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;k. bbbm. Ges.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Wiss. vii. Folg-

vol. ii. p. 20, pi. V. figs. 2-4.

1890. Bicksonia punctata, Staub, FSldt. Kozl. vol. xx. p. 227.

PEOTOPTEEIS.

Stonzel ’ has referred to several Protopteris species in his important communication on Ehhodendron Oppoliense, Goppert;nbsp;he points out that P. Cottai should be regarded as a synonym ofnbsp;P. Cotteana, Presl, and refers the specimen described in 1865 bynbsp;Gföppert as P. SUrnbergii to a new species, P. fibrosa, Stenz.

Protopteris Witteana, Schenk.

PI. XI.

The most important specimen of Protopteris Witteana from a botanical point of view is represented in PI. XI.; it is in allnbsp;probability from the English Wealden rocks, but unfortunately thenbsp;registered number is partly illegible, and cannot be identified withnbsp;any entry in the MSS. Catalogue of the Geological Collections.

This piece of stem has probably been slightly compressed, and the external surface suggests considerable rolling; it tapers slightlynbsp;towards both of the bluntly rounded ends. The internal structurenbsp;is partially preserved, apparently in carbonate of lime, but thenbsp;details are very imperfectly shown in microscopic sections. Onnbsp;the smooth water-worn surface the petiole bases are seen to benbsp;broadly oval in form, and slightly projecting above the generalnbsp;level of the stem ; in each leaf-soar the horse-shoe vascular bundlenbsp;is more or less clearly marked. Fig. 3, PI. XI.® shows one of thenbsp;more perfect leaf-trace bundles at t, and external to this at s thenbsp;peripheral sclerenchymatous tissue of the petiole ; such a formnbsp;Agrees more closely with that of Protopteris Witteana as figurednbsp;by Schenk, than with the more constricted form of P. punctata.nbsp;In the immediate neighbourhood of the leaf-trace there are a fewnbsp;Small circular markings, and occasionally these show two con-eentric circles, as at r.r. in Eig. 3 ; the inner no doubt representingnbsp;the vascular axis, and the outer the peripheral limits of annbsp;adventitious root. In the same Figure at r'.r'. there are obliquenbsp;longitudinal sections of adventitious roots. In some of the leaf-trace bundles it is possible to see clearly the peripheral stereomenbsp;tissue of the petiole base, which weathering agencies havenbsp;Occasionally left in relief immediately above the upper end ofnbsp;the vascular strand; eg. at s. Fig. 1.

There is a very striking resemblance between the more perfectly

' Jahres-Ber. ScUes. Ges. Kultur, 1886.

' N. Jahrb. 1865, p. 395.

® This drawing is made from the ground-down surface of the specimen.

PEOIOPIEEIS.

preserved petiole bases of P. Witteana and those of Picksom'a antarctica.

Between the prominent petiole scars the matrix of the fossil is somewhat lighter in colour, as at a.a., Bigs. 1-3; this appears tonbsp;consist of elongated parenchymatous cells, which may possiblynbsp;have originally existed as multicellular filaments, but havenbsp;been more or less welded together in the process of mineralization.nbsp;Here and there in this inter-petiolar tissue traces of adventitiousnbsp;roots occur, as e.g. at r and r' in Figs. 1-3.

In Pickionia antarctica the bases of the petioles are separated by a woolly mass of brown threads, traversed by a few adventitiousnbsp;roots. If these threads {ramenta) be examined microscopicallynbsp;they are found to be made up of long and narrow parenchymatousnbsp;elements, very similar in shape to those which occur between thenbsp;petiole bases in the fossil stem.

In PI. XI. Fig. 2 a transverse section of the fossil stem is represented natural size; the curved band-form vascular plates are clearly shown at t, and at p portions of the conducting tissue arenbsp;curving outwards as leaf-traces; an impression of a root section isnbsp;seen at r, and at a are the masses of tissue separating the individualnbsp;petioles.

A small piece of the vascular tissue of the stem is shown in Fig. 4; the xylem, x, is made up of polygonal tracheides of thenbsp;soalariform type, and associated with these there are indicationsnbsp;of parenchymatous cells ; the whole xylem tissue being apparentlynbsp;very similar in structure to that in the stem of Pioksonia, antarctica.

The dark lines, h.b, on either side of the xylem no doubt mark the limits of the phloem, but this more delicate tissue has not beennbsp;preserved.

In a few places there are traces of fairly large hrown-walled elements external to the limits of the phloem.

The xylem of this specimen, as regards the arrangement of the vascular bands and their histological structure, is verynbsp;similar to that of Protopteris Cottai as figured by Corda.‘

V. 2181. An imperfectly preserved Sandstone cast. Leaf-scars indistinctly shown. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Rufford Coll.

1 Flor. Vorwelt. pi. xlix.

There ie a section of F. Cottai in the Botanical Department Collection (British Museum) cut from the specimen figured by Corda.

ErrroEDiA.

V. 3302. A very imperfect cast, 23 cm. long; the petiole bases badly defined. A number of small boles occur on tbe surface ofnbsp;tbe sandstone, wbiob no doubt mark tbe position of adventitiousnbsp;roots. Tbe leaf-trace appears to correspond in shape to that ofnbsp;/*. Witteana as represented in Schenk’s figure, Paiseontographica,nbsp;vol. xix. pi. XXX. Ecclesbourne.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Hufford Coll.

Family ? SCHIZACE^.

Sporangia usually on modified leaf-segments; sessile or shortly stalked, with a complete apical annulus and longitudinal dehiscence.

Genus RUFFORDIA, gen. nov.

In instituting this new generic name I have followed the example recently set by Eaciborski in the case of Mesozoic ferns, and bynbsp;Stur, Zeiller, Kidston and others in dealing with ferns of Palaeozoicnbsp;age. Eaciborski proposes the name Kluhia ’ for the “ oldest knownnbsp;of the Schhacem,quot; and takes as the type of the genus Peoopterisnbsp;exilis, Phill., of which fertile pinnules have been described bynbsp;Phillips, Lindley and Hutton, and Bunbury.

In the present instance the new term is proposed instead of the older provisional genus Sphempteris, on the ground that thenbsp;Museum Collection has afforded material which gives us a muchnbsp;further insight into the true botanical affinity of Dunker’s species,nbsp;Oopperti. The fertile pinnae, described in detail under thenbsp;species Rujfordia Gopperti, suggest a connection with Anemia, andnbsp;the character of the sterile fronds is strongly confirmatory. Onnbsp;the other hand no details can be made out in the sporangia, whichnbsp;'^ould afford the most trustworthy kind of evidence in favour ofnbsp;or against a reference to the Sohizacece; to refer the Wealdennbsp;tern to Anemia, or to Dawson’s genus Aneimites, would be a stepnbsp;in advance of the facts at our disposal. Dawson suggested thenbsp;sub-genus Aneimites for a Devonian fern of the Cyclopteris type,

Bot. Jahrb. vol. xiii. p. 1.

EÜFPOEDIA.

which showed fertile pinnae but no sporangial structure; he compared the sterile pinnules to those of Anemia adiantifolia,nbsp;Sw., from Cuba.* Schimper’* does not admit the correctness ofnbsp;Dawson’s determination ; and, indeed, an inspection of the figuresnbsp;of Cyclopteris i^Aneimites) Acadica, Dawson, does not lead onenbsp;to accept the specimens as evidence for the existence of thenbsp;Schizacem in pre-Carboniferous times.

The plants included under Ruffordia are all referred to one species, some of the specimens being placed in a variety to denotenbsp;a marked difference in size of the ultimate segments of the sterilenbsp;fronds.

The genus is characterized by a distinct contrast between barren and fertile pinn®, by the resemblance of the pinnules to those ofnbsp;Anemia adiantifolia, Sw., and by the correspondence in habit ofnbsp;sterile and fertile pinnae to that species.

Ruffordia is placed in the Sehuacea, but, in the absence of very satisfactory proof, with the addition of a query expressive of thenbsp;imperfect evidence.

The adoption of this name is to place on record the enthusiasm and careful work of Mr. Eufford, to whose labours we are indebtednbsp;for the material on which the genus has been founded.

1.—Ruffordia Göpperti (Dunk.).

1833. Sphmopteru Phillipsn, Mantell, Geol. S.E. England, p. 239, flg. 2. 1844. Cheilanthites Gipperti, Bunker, Progr. p. 6.

1846. Sphenopteris Gopperti, Bunker, quot;Wealdenbildung, p, 4, pi. i. flg. 6, pi. ix. figs. 1-3.

Sphenopteris Hartlebeni, Bunker, loc. cit. p. 4, pi. ix. fig. 9. Sphenopteris longifolia, Bunker, he. cit. p. 4, pi. viii. fig. 6.

1848. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Gopperti, Broun, Index pal. nomeucl. vol. ii. p. 1168.nbsp;Sphenopteris Rartlebeni, Broun, ibid. p. 1168.

1849. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Gopperti, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107.

1850. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Gopperti, linger, Gen. spec, plant, foss. p. 109.

1851. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris adiantifrons, Ettingshauaen, Jabrb. k.-k. geol. Beichs.

Jahrg. ii. No. 2, p. 156.

1852. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Jugleri, Ettingshausen, Abh. k.-k. geol. Reiebs. Band i.

Abth. iii. No. 2, pi. iv. fig. 5.

Quart. Jouru. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. 1866, p. 153. Trait, pal. vég. vol. iii. p. 489.

EUFFOEDIA.

1854. Sphempteris PkilUpsii, Morris, Brit. foss. p. 21.

1864. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^ Sphenopteris Jugleri, Leckenby, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. rol. xx.

p. 79.

1869. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris [DmalVj Sartleheni, Schimper, Trait, pal. vég. yol. i.

p. 394, pl. XXX. figs. 2 and 3.

Sphenopteris (Bavall) Jugleri, Schimper, loc. cit. p. 394.

Sphenopteris [Davalï) longifoUa, Schimper, loo. cit. p. 394.

1870. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Auerbaehi, Trautschold, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Nat. Mosoou,

vol. xiii. p. 19, pl. xviii. fig. 5.

1871. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenopteris Göpperti, Schenk (in part), Palseontographica, vol. xix.

p. 209, pl. XXV. figs. 2-5.'

1875. ^Sphenopteris Jugleri, Phillips, Geol. Torks. edit. iii. p. 218.

1878. Sphenopteris Göpperti, Dupont, Bull. Ac. R. Belg. sér. ii. vol. xlyi. p. 396.

1881. Sphenopteris valdensis, Heer (in part), Secc. Trah. Gooi. Portugal, 4to. 1881, p. 14, pl. XV. fig. 11 \v. Same species under Ony-chiopsis Mantelli (Brong.)].

1890. Sphenopteris G'ópperti, Nathorst, Denkschr. Ak. quot;Wiss. math.-nat. Cl. vol. Ivii. p. 43, pl. vi. figs. 2 and 3.

1890. Sphenopteris, sp., Yokoyama, Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. p. 34, pl. xiv. figs. 13 and 13».

Type. A small, imperfectly preserved pinna. Bunker’s type Specimen agrees best with those English specimens which havenbsp;ultimate segments of median size, in length and breadth. Thenbsp;details of venation are not shown in the figure. The followingnbsp;definition is given by the author of the species^{1 2}:—

“ Sphenopteris fronde tripinnata, apicem versus bipinnata, pinnis alternis distantibus vel plus minus approximatis, pinnulisnbsp;ulternis clavatis petiolatis apice laciniatis vel sub-emarginatis,nbsp;laciniis obovatis, cuneatis, nervis obsoletis, rhacibus tenerrimisnbsp;oanalioulatis.”

The Kufford Collection has furnished us with an abundant Supply of material, which enables us to extend the definition ofnbsp;the species, and evidence is afforded by some of the specimensnbsp;of fertile fronds as to the probable botanical affinity of thisnbsp;dealden fern.

Frond tripinnate-quadripinnate, deltoid or rhomboidal, rachis frequently flexuous, pinnae alternate, deltoid to ovate-lanceolate;nbsp;pinnules delicate, decurrent on the rachis, ultimate segments linearnbsp;acuminate or ovate-cuneate. Venation of the type Canopteridis and

1

1 Pl. XXX. figs. 2 and 2a regarded as Onychiopsis elongata [Geyl.].

2

Wealdenbildung, p. 4.

EUFFOEDIA.

Sphenopteriiis. Pructification in the form of scattered sporangia on fertile fronds or pinnae, of which the leaf lamina is considerablynbsp;reduced.

Sphenopteris Phillipsii, Mant., may probably be included in the list of synonyms, although the fragment figured under this namenbsp;is so small that its real nature must remain uncertain. It agreesnbsp;very closely with some of the more broadly lobed forms of thenbsp;present species.

There is no doubt as to the specific identity of S. Hartlebeni, Dunk., and 8. longifolia, Dunk., with the present species, asnbsp;Schenk has already pointed out.

Jeanpaulia nervosa, Dunk.,' is included by Heer^ as a synonym of 8. valdensis, Hr., but a comparison of the figures lends littlenbsp;or no support to Heer’s view. Dunker’s J. Brawniana is muchnbsp;more like some of the English specimens of Ruffordia Göppertinbsp;than any other forms of that genus.

On comparing Ettingshausen’s figure of 8plienopteris Jugleri with those of 8. Oopperti given by Dunker and Schenk, certainnbsp;difEerences are at once apparent, but the inclusion by the latternbsp;author of Ettingshausen’s species in that of Dunker is fullynbsp;confirmed by the specimens in the Museum Collection. Thenbsp;specimen from the “ Lower Shale ” (Yorkshire Oolite) referrednbsp;by Leckenby to 8. Jugleri shows a very distinct resemblance to thenbsp;Wealden fern, and may possibly be rightly included in that species.

An examination of the type specimen in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge, suggests a strong likeness to PI. V. Figs. 2nbsp;and 3 of Ruffordia Göpperti (Dunk.); considering the small sizenbsp;and imperfect nature of Leckenby’s specimen, it is better to avoidnbsp;an unqualified assent to its association with the present species.

Schimper includes a species, 8phenopteris {Trichomi) Göpperti, Ettingsh.,’’ under the heading Sphenopteris-TricKomanides, butnbsp;this was instituted by Ettingshausen, in 1865, under the namenbsp;Trichomanites Göpperti^ for the reception of a plant from thenbsp;Dachschiefer of Moravia and Silesia. Sphenopteris Göpperti, Dunk.,nbsp;is included by Schimper as a synonym of 8. Hartlebeni,

' ‘Wealdenbildung, p. 12, pi. v. fig. 3.

^ Seco. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 14.

3 Trait, pal. vég. vol. i. p. 412.

‘ Sitz. k. Ak. quot;Wiss. quot;Wien, math.-nat. Cl. vol. li. Abth. i. 1865, p. 205.

EUFPOEDIA.

The small piece figured by Trautsohold as Sphempteris Auerlachi, Traut., from the Elin Sandstone seems to he identical with somenbsp;forms of Ruffordia Gopperti, as first suggested by Schenk.* Schenknbsp;compares Ruffordia Gopperti with. Sphenopteris Stenstrupi, Hr., andnbsp;8. Hinslopi, Old.; his figures represent imperfect pieces of pinnee.