248 GLOSSOPTERIS AND ITS ALLIES, 



the former the leaves are sessile, in the latter elongately petiolate ; 

 in the one case forming a clump, like our Mudgee fossil, in the 

 other an open-leaved pinna. The name may perhaps be retained 

 for -S*. (?) polyj)hylla with advantage, but hardly for «S'. (?) lonyi- 

 folia •. the latter in this sense corresponds to the third section into 

 which we have divided Sagenoj)teris. 



9. General Conclusions. 



After due consideration of the facts passed in review, we are 

 led to the following general conclusions. 



1. For simplicity' sake, and in common with Schiraper, Feist- 

 mantel, and others, it is more convenient to restrict the name 

 Glossopteris to fronds after the type of G. broioniana var. indica, 

 Brong. 



2. In common with the Indian plant described by McClelland, 

 the Australian form from Mudgee possessed leaves growing in a 

 clump at the end of a caudex, and did not form a digitate pinna. 



3. The Australian Glossopterids possessed both sessile and 

 petiolate leaves, the latter condition being in the majority. 



4. It is impossible to define the number of sessile leaves in a 

 clump, owing to their deciduous nature ; and as regards the petio- 

 late condition we do not yet know sufficient about it to dogmatise. 



5. Of the three states of fructification known in leaves so far 

 referred to Glossopteris, we possess two in Australia. 



6. The Mudgee fossil is allied to two Australian forms of 

 Glossopteris, viz., G. linearis, McCoy, and G. Clarkei, Feist. ; to the 

 one by general habit, and to the other by the character of its 

 venation. 



7. The Mudgee fossil in its long lanceolate and sessile leaves, 

 continuous mid-rib, &,c., bears a sti'ong resemblance to the 3rd 

 section of Sagenopteris, typified by S. (?) longifolia. Feist. 



8. As pointed out by Zeiller, no trace of sporangia has yet been 

 met with in Glossopteris, so far as we have been able to ascertain. 



