60 OTOZAMITES. 



Otozamites Klipsteinii (Dunk.). 



[PI. I. Figs. 3 and 4; PI. VII.] 



1846. Cyclopteris Klipsteinii, Dunker, Wealdenbildung, p. 11, pi. ix. figs. 

 6 and 7. 



1848. Cyclopteris Klipsteinii, Bronn, Index pal. nomencl. p. 377. 



1849. Adiantites? Klipsteinii, Brongniart, Tableau, p. 107. 



1850. Cyclopteris Klipsteinii, linger, Gen. spec, plant, foss. p. 95. 

 1869. Aneimidium Klipsteinii, Schimper, Trait, pal. veg. vol. i. p. 486. 

 1871. Aneimidium Klipsteinii, Schenk, Palaeontographica, vol. xix. p. 213, 



pi. xxxi. fig. 6. 



Type. Detached pinna and fragment of frond. 



Dunker defines the species as follows: "Cyclopteris fronde 

 pinnata, pinmilis alternis sessilibus ? ovato-ohlongis sequalibus, 

 nervis creberriinis flabellatis tenerrimis." He points out that 

 the veins are exceedingly delicate, and apparently dichotomous 

 in the upper portions, the venation shown in his figures being 

 coarser than it actually is in the specimens. Ettingshausen 

 figures four detached leaflets which he describes as intermediate 

 in character between Cyclopteris Mantelli and C. Klipdeinii; in 

 his drawings there appears to be a distinct suggestion of a 

 midrib, hut nothing is said in the definition of the species as 

 to the existence of a median vein. It has already been pointed 

 out (Wealden Catalogue, vol. i. p. 131) that these leaflets are 

 certainly not typical examples of Sagenopteris Mantelli (Dunk.), 

 as Ettingshausen erroneously states. It will be better to leave 

 them out of consideration as doubtful fragments. 



Schenk figures a single pinna of this species, which shows 

 very clearly an auriculate base and dichotomously spreading 

 veins. The Rufford Collection contains a large number of well- 

 preserved fronds with pinnae of various sizes, and which in some 

 cases are clearly identical with the species figured by Dunker 

 and Schenk as Cyclopteris or Aneimidium Klipsteinii. The 

 number and variety of the specimens present a difficulty as 

 regards specific determination. A casual inspection of the fronds 

 with large and broadly oval segments would probably lead one to 

 institute a new specific name for their reception, but on carefully 

 examining and comparing all the examples, it appears to be 

 impossible to determine definite specific limitations. The frond 



