1019 SPHENOPTERIS. 
the adjoining woodcut. Cf. Unger’s figure of Asplenium paleo- 
pteris, pl. i. fig. 4," and the fragments of Sphenopteris Delgadoi, 
figured by Saporta.? Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 724. Small fragment; probably S. Pittond, Dawson Coll. 
V. 2161. Part of a lower portion of a frond. The pinnules 
distinctly lobed. This fragment is not unlike S. Pichleri,? Schenk, 
but in the latter the lobes are described as acute ; the small pieces 
figured by Schenk suggest rather a slender foundation for his 
species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2163. A fragment from the upper part of a frond. There 
are somewhat striking differences between this specimen and 
V. 2161 and V. 2162, but on comparison with the more complete 
example, V. 2242, Pl. VI. Fig. 2, there can be little doubt as 
to specific identity. Cf. Heer’s figure of S. plurinerviat from 
Portugal. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2164. Rachis 12 cm. long. Pinnules indistinctly preserved, 
but many of them are exactly the same as those of V. 2242, and 
others agree with the more deeply divided forms such as V. 2827, 
etc. The pinne are given off from the main rachis at almost a 
right angle. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2190. Part of a frond as an impression on ironstone. This 
affords another example of what I take to be the effect of the 
manner of preservation on the general appearance of the fossil. 
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2352. Here, again, some of the pinne are almost at right 
angles to the main axes: ¢f. V. 2164. There is a certain resem- 
blance to S. Gomesiana,> Hr.; also to S. Pichlert, Schenk, and, 
to some extent, to Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). 
1 Reise Fregatte Novara. 
2 Rev. gen. bot. vol. v. 1893, pl. iv. fig. 5. 
8 Paleeontographica, vol. xxiii. pl. xxix. figs. 2-5. 
4 Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 13, pl. xi. fig. 6, ete. 
5 Heer, loc. cit. p. 13, pl. xi. fig. 7. 
