438 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OP 



Trocophyllum,* nobis. 



Annularia. Sternb. 



Annularia being pre-occupied as a generic name, in the sub-kingdom of 

 Mollusca, (Schumacher, Essai Nat. Syst. 1817), we would substitute for it the 

 one given above. 



T. f e r t il u s, nobis. 



Annularia fertilus, Sternb. 



1 spec. England. J. P. Wetherill, Esq. 



Ord. NEUROPTERHLE, Br. 



Neuroptebis, Brong. 

 N. h ir s u ta, Lesq. 



1 spec. (var. a c u t i f o 1 i a), little seam under Slivin. T. B. Wilson, M. D. 

 1 spec. "N. acutifolia," Brong. Br. Ins. Coll. No. 103. 

 1 spec. N. ? ' Br. Ins. Coll. No. 112. 



1 spec. (var. cordala), T. B. Wilson, M. D. 



N. auricula t a, Brong. 



1 spec. "N. auriculata with P. cyathea." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 127. 



N. Cistii, Brong.? 



1 spec. "N. Cistii. In a nodule of clay iron-stone." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 128. 



This form is, perhaps, only a variety of N. minor, nobis. But we have not 

 seen a sufficient number of specimens to enable us to decide with certainty, 



N. minor, nobis. 



Lithosmumda minor, Lloyd, Lithophylacium, 1 760. Felicites linguarius, Schloth . 

 Naacht. zur Petref. 1822 ; ejusdem Flora der Vorwelt, 1804. N. gigantea, St. 

 1821, and N. gigantea, N. Loschii, iV. rotundifolia, all of Brong. Prod. 1828. 



We do not hesitate in re-uniting these forms, separated by Mons. Brongniart. 

 He says, that he has never seen a specimen of N. g i g a n t e a, St., yet erects his 

 specimens into new species on such differential characters as, " ia the one, the 

 pinules overlap by a little of their border, in the other, there is a little space 

 between them." Every tyro in recent botany knows that, among the ferns, the 

 same plant varies in its different portions more than this. And we have 

 specimens of this species, less than two inches in length, that do so. That the 

 species of this genus do vary very much, is shown by N. h i r s u t a, Lesq., the 

 several forms of which differ from one another much more than do any of 

 these.f 



1 spec. [var. (flexuosa). R. E. Griffith. 



3 spec. "N. fiexuosa." On slate. Br. Ins. Coll. Nos. 105, 106? 



1 spec. "N. gigantea." In nodule of clay iron-stone. Br. Ins. Coll. No. 115. 



1 spec. "N. allied to Loschii." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 120. 



1 spec. " N. allied to Cistii." Br. Ins. Coll. No. 125. 



*Perhaps some naturalists would consider that this genus should receive the name of 

 Casuarinites, of which division of the old authors it is a section. But their genera of fossil 

 plants were so vague that all modern authorities agree in discarding them. If we revive 

 Casuarinites, Filicites, Phytolithus, &c, must also come again into use, much to the 

 detriment of an already complicated and difficult branch of science. Moreover, as A. 

 e quiaetiformis may be considered the type of the genus of Schlotheim, his name 

 would rather take the place of Asterophyllites. 



tWheiher botanists agree with us in considering these forms as belonging to one 

 species or not, N. minor, nobis, will have to replace N. Loschii, Br., and the 

 specific name minor thus being pre-occupied, we would suggest N. p a r v a, instead oi 

 N. minor, Lesq. It may be objected by some that N. minor is pre-Linnajan, 

 but the tenth edition of his Systema Naturae, in which the binomial nomenclature is 

 employed, was published 1758 ; and we hold it to be a great injustice to earlier writers to 

 reject their names when they are binomial. 



[Oct. 



