258 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 
XIV. On Two of Lindley and Hutton’s Type Specimens— 
I. Rhacopteris dubia, LZ. and H. sp.; II. Sphenopteris 
polyphylla, Z. and H. By Rosert Kinston, F.R.S.E., 
F.G.S. [Plate IX.] 
(Read 20th April 1892. ) 
Of neither of the above-mentioned species are the original 
figures very accurate, and with a view of removing this 
difficulty for their future identification, they are re-figured 
in the present communication. 
With the exception of the types, | have never seen any 
specimens that could be referred to either Ahacopteris dubia, 
L. and H. sp., or to Sphenopteris polyphylla, L. and H., the 
original specimens of which are in the collection of the 
Geological Society, London, to whom I am indebted for the 
privilege of re-figuring and describing them, 
I. RHACOPTERIS DUBIA, L. and H. sp. 
[Plate [X., Figs. 1 and 1a.] 
Otopteris ? dubia, L. and H., Fossil Flora, vol. ii., pl. cl., 1835. 
Cyclopteris Murchisoni, Unger, Genera et Species, p. 98, 1850. 
The fossil is preserved in a fine-grained buff-coloured 
sandstone, and its preservation is not so perfect as one 
would have wished. 
Among other points mentioned in the description of 
the specimen by the authors of the “Fossil Flora,” 
they say, on p. 191, after having compared the plant to 
Otopteris, “there would be no doubt indeed of the matter, 
if the embedded leaflets were all decidedly upon the same 
plane, for then we should be sure that it was really a 
pinnate leaf; but the leaflets are so irregularly embedded 
in the sandstone, some being visible upon fractures of the 
surface considerably lower than others, that we cannot avoid 
entertaining a suspicion that the leaflets, or rather leaves, as 
in that case they would be, were either whorled or placed 
all round a slender stem. Should this be so, the plant 
would then be a new species of either Spenophyllum or 
