CARBONIFEROUS. 89 



Cydopteris Germari. 



Boat, De Fil. Ectypis, p. 1 9. 



Sternberg, Vers. ii. p. 68. 

 Filicites conchaceus. 



Gerraar and Kaulfuss, Verh. d. k. Leop. Carol. Akad. vol. xv. p. 227, 

 pi. Ixvi. tig. 5. 



Cydopteris crassinervis. 



Goppert, Gatt. d. Foss. Pflanzen, lief. v. vi. p. 91, pi. vi. fig. 2. 

 Cydopteris flabellata. 



Heer, Flora Foss. Helv. lief. i. p. 18, pi. v. figs. 7, 8. 

 Cydopteris incequalis. 



Gutbier, Vers. d. Zwick. Schwarzk. p. 46, pi. vi. fig. 3. 



Cydopteris orbicularis. 



Feistmantel, Vers. d. Bohm. Kohlenabl. p. 289, pi. Ixvii. figs. 2, 3. 

 Gutbier, Vers. d. Zwick. Schwarzk. p. 46, pi. vi. tig. 2. 

 Morris, Trans. Geol. Soc. 2nd ser. vol. v. p. 488. 

 Roehl, Foss. Flora d. Steink. Form. Westph. p. 43, pi. xxi. fig. 3. 



Phytolithus filicites. 



Martin, Petrificata Derbiensia, pi. xxxiv. figs. 1, 2. 

 Parkinson, Organic Remains, vol. i. pi. v. tig. 5. 



Remarks. I have united Neuropteris Loshii, with JV. heterophylla, Brongt., 

 (a view adopted by several Botanists), as there is really no character by which 

 they can be separated. 



The figure of Neuropteris Loshii, given in Lindley and Hutton's Fossil Flora 

 (pi. xlix.), has much perplexed Botanists, and it differs so much from N. Loshii, 

 Brongt., that Sternberg distinguished it as N. Lindleyana. I have examined 

 the original of Lindley and Hutton's plate, which is in the " Hutton Col- 

 lection," and find it to be the ordinary form of N. Loshii ; but their plate is 

 inaccurately drawn, the pinnules not being separated or rounded on the 

 specimen as shown in their figure, and the terminal lobes of the pinnae are 

 not produced as represented by them. The enlarged view is altogether 

 misleading. Steinberg's name, N. Lindleyana, must therefore be reduced to 

 a synonym of N. heterophylla, Brongt. Judging from the plate, it is 

 doubtful if the N. heterophylla, L. and H. (Fossil Flora, pi. cxcvii.), belongs to 

 this species. It is certainly not a characteristic example of the plant, and is, 

 I think, to be referred to N. gigantea. 



Pecopteris adiantoides, Lindley and Hutton, (Foss. Flora, pi. xxxvii.) : 

 The figure of this plant is unfortunately another inaccurate drawing. In the 

 plate the pinnae are represented as being of almost equal width throughout 

 their whole length, and abruptly terminated by an odd leaflet. In the 

 specimen, which is preserved in the " Hutton Collection," the apices of all 

 the pinnae are broken off ; hence their termination, as represented on the plate 

 (which is about two-thirds natural size), is purely imaginary. The drawing 

 of the pinnules is also incorrect, the plant being, in fact, merely Neuropteris 

 heterophylla, Brongt. 



The subject of pi. xxvii., "Neuropteris sp.," in Lebour's Illustrations of 

 Fossil Plants, is also only a specimen of N. heterophylla, of which the figure 

 is quite misleading. 



Neuropteris Soretii, L. and H. (Fossil Flora, pi. 1.) : The type of this species 

 is also preserved in the same collection, and the plant appears to be only 

 N. heterophylla. The pinnules in the figure are too much attenuated at their 

 base. Sternberg's name for this figure, Neuropteris thymifolia, must there- 

 fore be suppressed. 



Neuropteris Loshii, Gutbier (Vers. d. Rothl. in Sachsen, pi. iv. figs. 2, 3), is 

 not Brongniart's plant of the same name, but in all likelihood an Odontopteris. 

 (See Weiss. Foss. Flora d. jung. Steink. u. d. Rothl. p. 27.) 



