58 ONYCHIOPSIS. 
Sphenopteris Mantelli type,” and adds: ‘‘It resembles more than 
any other described fossil Thyrsopteris elongata, Geyler.” If we 
look at Fontaine’s pl. xxvi. figs. 6 and 7, and compare. with 
Geyler’s pl. xxxi. fig. 4, it is well-nigh impossible to agree that 
these are different species, to say nothing of distinct genera ; or, 
again, it is difficult to separate, on good grounds, fig. 2, pl. xliv. 
of Fontaine from Onychiopsis elongata as figured by Yokoyama, 
pl. i. fig 2. It is true that Fontaine’s specimens show in some 
cases a stouter rachis than occurs in the Japanese examples. 
There seems to be but slender evidence in support of 
T. Meekiana, var. angustiloba. Cf. O. elongata; e.g. Fontaine, 
plo alin, fig 8) ands Yokoyama,’ plvais fen: 
The species of Onychiopsis described by Velenovsky,! referred 
to below, should be compared with Z. crenata, pl. xxxix. fig. 1, 
Fontaine, and Velenovsky, pl. i. fig. 9. 
In 7. densifolia, Font., we have a fern which seems to be very 
similar to Yokoyama’s fig. 2, pl. ii. of O. elongata; the difference 
consists in the somewhat broader pinnules of the former. The 
figures of 7. densifolia suggest a form of plant identical with that 
represented by 7. Meekiana, Font., e.g. pl. xxxviii. fig. 3. 
Another of these ‘‘ Zhyrsopteris” species, Z. microphylla, is 
referred by Fontaine to the ‘‘ Sphenopteris Mantelli type,” and 
the figures of this species appear to me illustrations of the plant 
included under the name 7. angustifolia; both come near to O. 
elongata. Compare also 7. pinnatifida, Font., pl. li. fig. 2, etc., 
with O. elongata, and with the latter species Z. inequipinnata, 
Font. 
T. elliptica, Font., is described as ‘‘not very close to any 
previously described fossil; ’’ * there appears, indeed, to be a rather 
close resemblance between the figures of this species, pl. xlvi. 
fig. 1, and 7. densifolia, Font., pl. xl. fig. 4. In addition to the 
two species 7. Virginica and 7. alata, to which allusion has been 
made as examples of specific determinations which are without 
such claim as entitles them to serious recognition as well-defined 
types, a third may be mentioned, 7. heterophylla, Font., which does 
not appeal more strongly for acceptance, if we may judge by the 
figured fragments, pl. lviii. figs. 3 and 3a. 
1 Loe. cit. p. 10, pl. i. figs. 6-12. 
2 Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 138. 
