142 
narrowing and suddenly expanding. The outer or distal ex- 
tremity of the frond is unknown. ‘There is no mid-rib, the well- 
marked neuration radiating and following the outline of the 
frond. The veins are equal in size, some twice and others thrice 
dichotomous, certain of them again uniting at long intervals to 
form an exceedingly elongated hexagonal, or rarely polygonal, 
equal-sized mesh, more particularly in the basal third of the 
frond; they are slightly thickened immediately before dichot- 
omization, and the branched or dichotomised vein then slightly 
bending. On the whole, allowing for the slightly radiate charac- 
ter, the veins may be said to be subparallel. 
IT do not think there can be any question of the remarkable 
shape of this frond, for although here and there the margins are 
not preserved, still there is sufficient remaining at other places, 
more particularly towards the base, to warrant the outline 
described above; furthermore, the curvature of the venation 
supports this. There is no sign of a petiole. 
Fragments of fronds referred to Anthrophyopsis are not un- 
known from Mesozoic deposits other than those of Sweden. 
Feistmantel has figured* a supposed fragment from the Lower 
Gondwana formation of India, which has a neuration with very 
much the aspect of that of our plant, but perhaps the mesh 
formed by the reticulation of the veins is larger in the latter 
than the former. The same author has also describedt a sup- 
posed example from the South African Karoo formation, but the 
mesh is much too small for that of the South Australian plant. 
Feistmantel seemed inclined to regard{ Anthrophyopsis merely as 
a Gangamopteris, but in none of Nathorst’s figures is there the 
peculiar “dissolved” mid-rib of the latter. If the present frond 
be an Anthrophyopsis, it is most nearly allied to A. Wilssoni. 
Whatever its nature may be, one point is certain, not only is it 
an addition to the Leigh Creek deposit, but also to the Mesozoic 
rocks of Australia generally. 
It would be unnecessary to notice the genus Ctenis, as 
originally figured by Lindley & Hutton, were it not that both 
Schimper § and Schenk|| have referred Taniopteris aspleniordes, 
Ett., to Ctenis. This is a plant having a close resemblance to 
Nathorst’s Anthrophyopsis crassinervis, Schimper remarking that 
the neuration recalls that of Glossopteris. However much 
Ettinghausen’s species may resemble the present form of plant, 
* Pal. Indica (Gondwana Flora), 1881, III., pt. 3, t. 41a, fig. 5. 
+Geol. Pal. Verhiltnisse Siid-Afrikas, 1889, I., p. 67, t. 2, fig. 4. 
+ Pal. Indica, loc. cit., p. 115. 
§ Zittel’s Traité Pal., pt. 2, Paléophytologie (French edit.), 1891, p. 13l. 
|| Paleontographica, XVI., Heft 6, t. 25, fig. i. 
