CLADOPHLEBIS. 103 
In Saporta’s species, Scleropteris dissecta, we have a similar 
form of frond to that of C. Dunkert, as regards general outline, 
but, as Saporta points out in his definition of the genus, the 
venation is distinct. 
The terminal portions of pinne which served as Dunker’s type 
for P. Browniana might almost be included in P. Dunkeri, but the 
more perfect specimens figured by Schenk in his earlier contribution 
to the Wealden Flora make the retention of the species advisable. 
Wi 23%(enPl. VIL. Big. 3. 
Portions of large pinne; pinnules distinct, but venation difficult 
to determine. Compare this specimen with Schenk’s figures 3—5, 
pl. xxvi.,? also Nathorst’s figures of Pecopteris Geyleriana, ete. 
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2185. The two specimens with this registered number have 
entire pinnules gradually passing into small pinne. They show, 
in places, the habit of C. Albertsiz (Dunk.), but cannot be separated 
by any distinct features from other specimens which agree with the 
typical form of the species. Kcclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 21932. Same form as the figured specimen V. 2377. Ececles- 
bourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2194. This shows the spreading habit of the frond, and a 
passage from the bipinnate to the tripinnate form. Details not 
very distinct. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2219 and V. 2345. Fragments of pinne ; both of them agree 
with Schenk’s figure, pl. xxvi. fig. 1,* and here the small pinnules 
are nearly at right angles to the rachis. Some of the pieces, ¢.g. 
in V. 2345, differ from such specimens as V. 2377, in having their 
ultimate divisions smaller and more at right angles to the axes of 
the pinne, but by comparing them with V. 2382, etc., we appear 
to have a gradual transition to the normal type. There is a 
difference in the matrix in this case which doubtless has much to 
do with the apparent divergence in form. Ecclesbourne. 
Rufford Coll. 
1 Pal. Frang. vol. i. 1873, p. 365, pl. xlviil. fig. 1. 
2 Paleontographica, vol. xxiii. 
3 Ibid. vol. xix. 
