ox THE OCCURRENCE OF THE GENUÖ (HCJANTOPTERIS IN KOREA. »3 



iiuother example wliicli, tlioiigli a part of a .similarly large frond, 

 shows the niargin simply undulated, instead of b(;ing regularly 

 dentate as in tlie one shown in fig. 1 ; the seeondary veins are 

 somewhat flexuous. 



Though I know nothing more about this fossil plant, still 

 from what has been said above, it is quite elear that the characters 

 of the plant are very distinctive. By its dentate margin, it 

 somewhat reminds one of Clathropieris platyphylla from the 

 Triassic ; but no trace of areolatiou of veirilets, very marked in 

 Clathro])teris, is recognizable on our examples. And thus, so far 

 as I knoAV, the present fossil indicates no sign of relation to any 

 other plant than the monotypic genus G'lganiopteris. 



Gigantopteris nicoiicenifolia is a remarkable plant, first de- 

 scribed by Schenk'^ from Lui-pa-kou, in the province of Hunan. 

 It was originally published under the name of ' Ileyaloptens ' ; 

 but finding the generic name preoccupied. Schenk soon substituted 

 ' Giganto])teris ' for it.'^ 



The diagnosis of this frond was given by him as follows : 



" Folia late ovato-lanceolata intégra leniter undulata, nervus 

 Primarius crassus supra sulcatus apicem versus tenior, nervi 

 secondarii angulo acuto egredientes oblique ascendentes arcuati, 

 tertiarii obliqui anastomosantes ". 



Thus, in the general features of the frond, our examples 

 agree quite well with this Chinese form ; though there is a little 

 difference in the character of the margin which, however, is only 

 of a subordinate value. Therefore I feel justified in putting tliem 

 together in one and the same genus.''^ 



1) Schekk: Steinkohlenpflanzen, p. 2o8. 



2) This fact first became known to me from tlie review of this paper mentioned by 

 Weiss and Geyler in " Xenes Jahrbuch f. Mineralogie, Geologie u. Paléontologie", 188o, 

 II. p. 256. 



ol Zeillek took tliem specißcully identical as referred to further on. 



