54 GLOSSOPTERIS. 



or Feistniantel's other species were obtained, and better figures of 

 them reproduced, some of those included here with G. Browniana 

 might be found to be distinct, but at present there does not appear 

 to be any good evidence for separating them. 



The plant named G. reticulum by Dana l is undoubtedly 

 a frond of Glossopteris Browniana, with fairly broad meshes. 

 Dana himself admitted the similarity between these two fronds, 

 but was misled by the inaccuracy of Brongniart's figure. I believe 

 the same author's 2 G. elongata to be merely a basal portion of 

 a frond of G. Browniana (cf. PL II, Fig. 3) with open meshes, 

 although at first sight his drawing seems to agree more closely 

 with G. ret if era. 



Glossopteris SutJierlandi, Tate, appears to be simply one of the 

 narrow, linear fronds here included under G. Browniana. The 

 genus and species proposed by the same author, 3 Rubidyea Mackayi, 

 was founded on a drawing of a specimen sent from South Africa, 

 and now in the Museum of the Geological Society of London. 

 In the sketch, the veins do not anastomose, and apparently there 

 is no midrib. It is impossible to determine this plant accurately 

 without seeing the actual specimen. Feistmantel 4 has compared 

 it with the leaves of Balceovittaria, but for the present its identity 

 is best regarded as uncertain. The two species from New South 

 Wales, G. rectinervis and G. acuta, recently distinguished by Dun, 5 

 hardly appear to me to be distinct forms. The frond of 

 G. rectinervis may be compared with some of the narrow, linear 

 fronds, included here under G. Browniana, from which it differs 

 chiefly in the very oblique nature of the lateral nervation. But 

 in the specimens figured by this author this character does not 

 seem to be at all constant, and further it is one which appears 

 to me to be extremely unreliable. The specimen of G. acuta is 

 too fragmentary to serve as the type of a new species, although 

 the discovery of further examples of this, or possibly of the 

 previous species, may show that these fronds are really distinct. 



1 Hana (40), p. 717, pi. xiii, fig. 2. 



2 Dana (49), p. 718, pi. xiii, fig. 4. 



3 Tate (67), p. HI, pi. v, fig. 8. 



4 Feistmantel (89), p. 48. 



5 Dun (97), pp. 64-5, pi. ix, fgs. 1-5. See alto Etheridge (01), p. 71. 



