148 TEMPSKYA. 
V. 2299. Small fragment of pinna. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2345 and V. 23452. Small piece of rachis with a few pinne ; 
somewhat intermediate in form between Pl. IX. Fig. 2 and Pl. VII. 
Fig. 5. Eeclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 
V. 2375. <A single pinna, 3°6 cm. long, of uniform breadth; 
pinnules show faint traces of venation which may possibly be of 
the Cladophilebis type; there is the same wavy or slightly-lobed 
margin as in Pl. VII. Fig. 5 (V. 2809). Ecclesbourne. 
Rufford Coll. 
Genus TEMPSKYA, Corda. 
[ Flor. Vorwelt, 1845, p. 81.] 
Corda proposed this term for four specimens of fossil ferns dis- 
covered by Tempsky. 
He included the genus in the family Phthoropterides, and defined 
it as follows :— 
‘‘Truncus ... . Rhachis rotundata, plicata vel alata, cortice 
erassiuscula, fasciculis vasorum ternatis, majori clauso vel lunulato 
et supra incuryo, minoribus oppositis lunulatis. Radices minute 
numerosissime ; fasciculo vasorum centrali unico.” 
The older name Endogenites, used by Sprengel’ and Brongniart? 
in 1828, was chosen by Stokes and Webb ® for Mantell’s specimens, 
which have since been referred to Corda’s genus, as expressive of 
their opinion that the fossils were pieces of some Monocotyledonous 
stem. Mr. Starkie Gardner‘ in alluding to certain examples of 
“« Endogenites”’ in the British Museum, to which Mantell probably 
referred in his remarks on Monocotyledonous stems in the English 
Wealden, speaks of them as ‘of course Cycadeous.’’ If he 
refers to the common form of Endogenites erosa, there can be no 
question of Cycadean affinity ; the structure is undoubtedly that of 
a fern. It would be difficult to give any satisfactory definition of 
the genus Zempskya; and seeing that such specimens as are 
1 Commentat. Psarolithus. p. 21. 
2 Prodrome, p. 136. 
3 Trans. Geol. Soc. ser. ii. vol. 1. p. 428. 
4 Brit. Assoc. Report, 1886, p. 3 (reprint). 
