GLOSSOPTERIS. 39 



Feistmantel and many other authors have described numerous 

 forms of Glossopterid fronds from India, Australia, and South 

 Africa, but it is only within the last few years that we have 

 come to know anything of the general habit and characteristics of 

 this plant. Zeiller ' especially has greatly added to our knowledge 

 in this respect. He was the first to point out that the fossils, long 

 known as Vertebraria, are the rhizomes of Glossopteris, a discovery 

 which was made independently, and almost simultaneously by 

 Oldham. Zeiller has also offered a more satisfactory explanation 

 of the morphological features of these impressions, 2 and to him we 

 owe the discovery of the dimorphic nature of the fronds. 



Until quite recently we have been without reliable evidence 

 as to one important character, the fructification. It may, perhaps, 

 be worth while considering in some detail the evidence which has 

 been put forward so far on this subject. 



Distribution. — Pernio- Carboniferous (Glossopteris flora) : — India, 

 in the Talchir and Damuda divisions ; Persia ; New South 

 Wales, in the "Lower Coal Measures" and Newcastle Series; 

 Queensland ; Western Australia ; Tasmania ; Cape Colony ; Natal ; 

 Transvaal; Orange River Colony; Rhodesia; German and Portuguese 

 East Africa ; Argentina. Permian (Northern Type) : — Russia. 

 Triassic : — India (Panchet division) ; Tonquin ; China. 



THE FRUCTIFICATION OF GLOSSOPTERIS. 



Glossopteris has been almost universally regarded as a fern on 

 account of the similarity of habit which exists between the larger 

 fronds and those of such recent genera as Drymoglossum, Acro- 

 stichum, among others, rather than from any knowledge of the 

 fructification. It may be stated at once that until the present 

 year (1905) the sporangia of this plant have not been recognised. 

 The fronds, which have been figured by various authors as 

 exhibiting characters indicative of the position of the sori, are not 

 free from the doubt that these features may, after all, be capable 

 of a different explanation. Consequently the systematic importance 



Zeiller (96*). ~ Zeiller (96 1 ). 



