112 SPHENOPTEEIS. 



the adjoining woodcut. Cf. Unger's figure of Asplenium palao- 

 pteris, pi. i. fig. 4, 1 and the fragments of Sphenopteris Delgadoi, 

 figured by Saporta. 2 Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



V. 724. Small fragment ; probably S. Fittoni. Dawson Coll. 



V. 2161. Part of a lower portion of a frond. The pinnules 

 distinctly lobed. This fragment is not unlike S. Pichleri* Schenk, 

 but in the latter the lobes are described as acute ; the small pieces 

 figured by Schenk suggest rather a slender foundation for his 

 species. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



V. 2163. A fragment from the upper part of a frond. There 

 are somewhat striking differences between this specimen and 

 V. 2161 and V. 2162, but on comparison with the more complete 

 example, V. 2242, PL VI. Fig. 2, there can be little doubt as 

 to specific identity. Cf. Heer's figure of S. plurinervia* from 

 Portugal. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



V. 2164. Rachis 12 cm. long. Pinnules indistinctly preserved, 

 but many of them are exactly the same as those of V. 2242, and 

 others agree with the more deeply divided forms such as V. 2327, 

 etc. The pinnae are given off from the main rachis at almost a 

 right angle. Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



V. 2190. Part of a frond as an impression on ironstone. This 

 affords another example of what I take to be the effect of the 

 manner of preservation on the general appearance of the fossil. 

 Ecclesbourne. Rufford Coll. 



V. 2352. Here, again, some of the pinnae are almost at right 

 angles to the main axes : cf. V. 2164. There is a certain resem- 

 blance to 8. Gomesiana, 6 Hr. ; also to S. Pichleri, Schenk, and, 

 to some extent, to Onychiopsis Mantelli (Brong.). 



1 Reise Fregatte Novara. 



2 Rev. gen. hot. vol. v. 1893, pi. iv. fig. 5. 



3 Palaeontographica, vol. xxiii. pi. xxix. figs. 2-5. 



* Secc. Trab. Geol. Portugal, 1881, p. 13, pi. xi. fig. 6, etc. 

 6 Heer, loc. cit. p. 13, pi. xi. fig. 7. 



