srnENorTERis. 139 



contour. Raehis smooth, winged. Pinnules either confluent or 

 contracted at the base, fairly broad, more or less deeply and 

 irregularly pinnatifid, lobes entire or dentate. Nervation of the 

 pinnules pinnate, simple, or bifurcate. 



This species is very little known. According to Feistmantel 

 only two specimens have been described, one of which, rirongniari's 

 type, was obtained from the coal-mines on the Hawkesbury River, 

 near Port Jackson, and the other, a poor specimen mentioned 

 by McCoy, now in the Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, is from 

 Newcastle, New South Wales. I have had an opportunity of 

 examining the latter, and it appears to me to be perhaps 

 distinct from S. luhifolia in the habit, and in some details of the 

 nervation, although Shirley 1 has recently expressed the opinion 

 that these two species should be united. The pinnules are broader 

 (I mm.), and more ovate in many instances in the Cambridge 

 specimen. The frond, which is incomplete, is 1 65 cm. long, and 

 more than 20 cm. across. The pinnules are sub-opposite, with 

 three or more bluntly and obliquely cut segments on either side, 

 each of which is supplied by a simple or bifurcating nervule. 



I have pointed out elsewhere 2 in some detail the confusion 

 which has arisen between this plant and the plant originally 

 described by Brongniart as Sphenopteris alaia, now known as 

 S. Grandini (Gopp.). 



Sphenopteris alata (Brong.) is known only from the Newcastle 

 Series of New South "Wales. 3 



Not represented in the British Museum collection. 



5. Sphenopteris, sp. (from India). 



V. 7193. Badly preserved fragments, probably of a Sphenopteris, 

 in which the nervation is not clearly seen. 



Nagpur, India. Sankey Coll. 



V. 7193ff. A branched axis, presumably part of a Sphenopterid 

 frond, but badly preserved, especially as regards the nervation. 



Nagpur, India. SanJcey Coll. 



1 Shirley (02), p. 10. 2 Arber (02 1 ), p. 10. 



3 Mr. Etheridge, jun., has expressed the opinion that this species probably 

 also occurs in the Hawkesbury Sandstone ; see Feistmantel (90), p. 89, footnote. 



