126 TH NIOPTERIS. 
I have slightly modified the original diagnosis in one or two 
particulars. 
Schenk points out that his species is readily distinguished from 
others by the form of the leaf. There is, however, a fairly close 
agreement between Z. Beyrichii, Schenk, and some specimens of 
T. tenuinervis, Brauns;' also 7. stenoneuwra, Schenk, as figured 
by Saporta,? and Zeniopteris (Stangerites) spatulata (McCleland).° 
It is extremely difficult to separate many of the forms of 
Teniopteris described by various writers from different geological 
horizons. 
In 1882 Peyton recorded the discovery by Mr. Dawson of a 
specimen which he referred to Schenk’s species, in the Wadhurst 
clay near Hastings. Other specimens were afterwards found by 
Peyton himself, who speaks of a slight divergence of the Hastings 
specimens from Schenk’s figured type. He describes the midrib 
as ‘‘herring-boned’’; this I regard as descriptive of the branching 
outwards of the lateral veins. 
V. 2381. Pl. [X. Figs. 3 and 3a. 
This specimen agrees very closely with Schenk’s figure, pl. 
xxix. fig. 7,4 except that in his specimen the lateral veins are 
rather closer together. 
Cf. ZL. (Oleandridium) obtusa, Nath.,° from the Bjuf plant beds, 
pl. viii. figs. 7, 9, 10, and 13. It seems almost impossible to 
separate such a specimen as Fig. 10, Pl. VIII. from 7. Beyrichit. 
Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2172. Smaller specimen, 4 cm. long, 4mm. broad; indented 
apex. Practically identical with Schenk’s figure. Ecclesbourne. 
Rufford Coll. 
V. 2177. Small fragments of the same species. Ecclesbourne. 
Rufford Coll. 
52942c. Venation not preserved. Possibly a fragment of 7. 
Beyrichii, Schenk. Presented by J. E. H. Peyton, Esq., 1886. 
1 Brauns, Paleontographica, vol. ix. p. 50, pl. xiii. figs. 1-3. 
2 Pal. France. vol. i. p. 443, pl. Ixii. figs. 2 and 3. 
3 Foss. Fl. Gond. vol. i. pt. i. p. 34, pl. vi. figs. 1-7. 
4 Paleontographica, vol xix. 
5 Sver. Geol. Undersikn, 4to. Flor. Bjuf, 1878. 
