66 Anncds of the South African Museum. 



? GINKGOALES. 

 Genus STACHYOPITYS Schenk. 



Stachyopitys sp. 



(Cf. S2)lienoleiyis rlicetica Geinitz). 



Plate IX., figs. 2, 2a. 



A fragment of a fertile shoot consisting of a fairly broad axis 

 bearing lateral branches terminating in a cluster of obovate bodies 

 arranged in apparent whorls. 



The nature of the fossil represented in pi. ix., figs. 2, 4a, must be 

 left in doubt ; the single specimen is too incomplete to afford 

 sufficient evidence as to its structure and afiinity. A somewhat 

 similar fragment is figured by Geinitz * from the Ehgetic of San 

 Juan (Argentine) as S2:)lienoleins rhcetica ; he describes the specimen 

 as consisting of spherical or compressed cones bearing numerous 

 spirally disposed woody scales of obovate form, their outer convex 

 surface exhibiting indistinct and irregular longitudmal striae or 

 grooves. In size, and in the appearance of the cones, Geinitz 's 

 specimen agrees with that shown in fig. 2 ; but in the African 

 example the scales occur in a single radiate series with portions of 

 a superposed second series seen at a, fig. 2a. 



Another fossil bearing a resemblance to the Stormberg specimen 

 is that described by Schenk under the name Stachyopitys presUi f 

 as male flowers of a Conifer from the Ehaetic of Franconia ; the chief 

 difi'erence between the German and African fossils is the smaller 

 number of radiate appendages in the former. A Queensland fossil 

 described by Shirley as Stachyopitys annularioides \ also agrees 

 fairly closely with the Stormberg fragment, so far as it is possible 

 to base an opinion on the somewhat crude drawings. 



From Thuringian Permian rocks Potonie has figured fertile 

 portions of Pecopteris pinnatifida (Gutb.) § which present an appear- 

 ance similar to that of Schenk's Stachyopitys preslii and to the 

 specimen shown in pi. ix., fig. 2. 



Without expressing a definite opinion as to the botanical position 

 of the fossil, it may be provisionally included in Schenk's genus 

 Stachyopitys, with the suggestion that it may be a fragment of a 



* Geinitz (7G), p. 12, pi. ii., fio-s. '23, 24. 

 t Schenk (67), p. 185, pi. xliv., figs. 9-12. 

 I Shirley (98), p. 13, pi. xviii. 

 § Potonie (93), pi. xviii., figs. 9, 10, and pi. x. 



