48 ONYcmopsis. 



of name, I found that Yokoyama 1 had figured and described the 

 same kind of fertile pinnae in a Japanese "Jurassic" fern very 

 closely allied to the European Onychiopsis Mantelli but in his 

 description of the Japanese species, Onychiopsis elongata (Gfeyl.), 

 there is no reference made to Brongniart's species. He compares 

 his fertile specimens to the same recent genera already referred to, 

 Onychium, Kaulf., and Cryptogramme, K. Br., and on the strength 

 of the strong likeness to the former he founds his new genus, 

 Onychiopsis. There is such an exceedingly intimate connection 

 between Yokoyama' s species and our English specimens, that I 

 have no hesitation in following the suggestion previously made 

 by Nathorst, and altering the well-known Sphenopteris Mantelli, 

 Brong., to Onychiopteris Mantelli (Brong.), thus substituting for a 

 provisional generic name one which recognizes the botanic affinity 

 of the Wealden species. 



V. 2168. PI. II. Pig. 1. 



A very fine specimen, and much larger than any hitherto figured 

 of this species. It shows very clearly the general habit of the 

 tripinnate frond, but the details are not clearly defined. Length of 

 frond 18 cm., breadth about 12 cm. The resemblance of some parts 

 of this specimen to Heer's figures of Sphenopteris valdensis has 

 already been alluded to ; there is also a distinct agreement between 

 the pinnae and the fragment figured by Tate from South Africa as 

 S. antipodum. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



V. 2151a. PI. III. Pig. 1. 



In this specimen we have an exceedingly delicate (?) frond 

 which, on a smaller scale, repeats the characters of the species as 

 represented in V. 2168, PI. II. Pig. 1. The marked difference in 

 size led me to consider the advisability of instituting a variety, 

 0. Mantelli, var. minor, but such a course would merely serve to 

 multiply terms, and would not be supported by any characters 

 of trustworthy value as regards natural affinity. A difference in 

 size, although strongly marked, is not a character to be lightly 

 insisted on as a basis for a species or variety when we are dealing 

 with fragments of fossil plants. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



1 Journ. Coll. Sci. Japan, vol. iii. 1890, p. 26, pi. ii. figs. 1-3. 



