TEMPSKYA. 153 
matous tissue, and the larger bundles as strongly bent in a horse- 
shoe pattern; and he comes to the conclusion that the affinities 
of the plant are probably with the Marattiacee. On what grounds 
this comparison is made is not very clear. The diare nature of 
the root vascular bundles is opposed to any Marattiaceous affinity." 
A large transverse section is figured in pl. xliii. of Schenk’s Mono- 
graph; the structure is far from perfect, but it suffices to give 
confirmation to the statement that the specimen is identical with 
those from the Wealden rocks of England. The general absence 
of the vascular bundles in the circular root sections and the 
appearance of all such tissues as are preserved, exactly correspond 
to what is usually found in our common English examples. 
Carruthers? refers to the absence of all traces of foliage in 
Tempskya Schimpert, and expresses the opinion that the species 
may probably be considered as a portion of some arborescent fern. 
Another species of this genus, Z. cretacea, has been described by 
Hosius and von Marck from the Lower Senonian of Haltern,* and 
is compared by them to 7. Schimpert. In 1872 Feistmantel* drew 
attention to the doubtful value of Zempskya as a distinct genus, 
and pointed to the probability of such forms being found to be 
simply examples of Protopteris Sternbergii, Cord., in a particular 
state of preservation. He suggests that possibly Z. pulchra, Cord., 
T. macrocaulis, Cord., 7. microrhiza, Cord., are merely so many 
states of fossilization of Protopteris Sternbergii, and identical with 
Palmacites varians, Cord., described by Corda in Reuss’ “ Versteine- 
rungen der bohmischen Kreideformation”’ ;° the latter he regards as 
a mass of silicified air-roots of Protopteris Sternbergii.. Feistmantel 
makes the important announcement that in some of the Tempskyas 
which he examined it was possible to detach the outer portions of 
the specimen from an internal nucleus exhibiting the characteristic 
markings of P. Sternbergii. 
Velenovsky’ has supplemented Feistmantel’s remarks with regard 
to this problematical fossil by his descriptions of specimens from 
1 De Bary, Comp. Anat. p. 364. 
2 Dixon, Geol. Sussex, p. 282. 
3 Paleontographica, vol. xxvi. p. 192, pl. xxxix. figs. 161-163. 
4 Abh. k. béhm. Ges. Wiss. vi. Folg. vol. v. 1872, p. 22. 
5 p. 87, pl. xlvii. fig. 7. 
§ Corda’s figures in Reuss’ work have a distinct resemblance to Palm structures, 
7 Abh. k. béhm. Ges. Wiss. vii. Folg. vol. ii. 1888, p. 23. 
