SPHENOLEPIDITJM. 201 



1875. Thuites (Cupressites] Eurrianus, Topley, Weald, p. 409. 



1881. Sphenolepidium Kitrrianiim. Heer, Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, p. 19, 



pi. xii. fig. ll> ; pi. xiii. figs. Ib and 8b ; pi. xviii. figs. 1-8. 

 1881. ? Thuites Chofati, Heer, loc. cit. p. 11, pi. x. fig. 8. 

 1SS4. Sphenolepidium, Kurrianum, Schenk in Zittel's Handbuch, p. 304, fig. 210. 

 1885. ? Sphenolepis Kurriana, Hosius and Von der Marck, Palseontographica, 



Tol. xxvi. p. 216, pi. xliv. fig. 209. 

 1889. Sphenolepidium Kitrrianiim, Fontaine, Potomac Flora, p. 260, ?pl. cxxvi. 



figs. 1-6 ; pi. cxxviii. figs. 1 and 7 ; pi. cxxix. figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 ; 



? pi. cxxx. fig. 11 ; pi. cxxxi. fig. 4 ; pi. clxvii. fig. 2. 

 ? Sphenolepidium Virginicum, Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 259, pi. cxxv. fig. 4, 



and pi. clxvi. fig. 6. 

 ? Athrotaxopsis expansa, Fontaine, loc. cit. p. 241, pi. cxxxv. figs. 15, 



18, and 22. 



1894. Sphenolepidium Kurrianum, Saporta, Flor. foss. Port. p. 115, pi. xxii. 



figs. 3-5. 



1895. ^Sphenolepidium Eurrianum, Kerner, Jalirb. k.-k. geol. Beichs. 



vol. xlv. Heft i. p. 51, pi. iv. fig. 2. 



Type. Vegetative branch. ? Berlin Museum. 



Dunker thus defines the species : 



" Thuites ramulis erectis irregulariter pinnatis, compressiusculis 

 utrimque subcarinatis, foliolis crassiusculis imbricatis irregulariter 

 dispositis elongatis subflexuosis apice acutis dorso carinatis sub- 

 distantibus." 



The small fragment figured by Homer as Musettes imbricatits, 

 Rom., is probably identical with Sphenolepidium Kurrianum 

 (Dunk.); Schenk calls attention to this resemblance, but, not having 

 seen the type specimen, hesitates to express any decided opinion. 

 Although there is a strong probability of Roruer's specimen being 

 a leafy twig of the present species, it would hardly be wise to 

 enforce the rule of priority as regards the specific designation 

 without more trustworthy data. The other fragment figured by 

 Roruer 1 as Musettes falcifolius, Ro'rn., and compared by Dunker 

 with Sphenolepidium Kumanum, is too small to identify with 

 certainty, and does not bear such a strong resemblance to Bunker's 

 species as does M imlricatus. 



Ettinghausen's species Widdringtonites Haidingeri is no doubt 

 correctly included by Schenk in the present species. The specimens 

 figured by Ettingshausen as Araucarites curvifolius agree so closely 



1 Eb'mer, F. A. (A.), Verstein. Ool. Geb. pi. xvii. fig. \e. 



