Mr Richards on Scottish Fossil Cycadaceous Leaves. 119 



think, to identify the two, if no other information were 

 available. The complete descriptions, however, and numerous 

 drawings by Saporta of the French plant {Pal Frangaise, 

 Vegetaiix Jurassiqices, vol. ii., Cijcad^es, p. 99 and plates) have 

 prevented me from doing so. From these it appears that 

 Z. Feneonis never attains the dimensions of the Scottish 

 specimxen, while it is usually much smaller, and often quite 

 small. The imperfection of the example makes it uncertain 

 whether the breadth of the leaf was as great in proportion to 

 its length as is the case in Z. Feneonis, nor can it be deter- 

 mined whether the leaflets were of the same acuminate form. 

 These, as already stated, do not at any part of the specimen, 

 throughout the 12 inches seen, depart from the strictly hori- 

 zontal direction, nor are they ever contiguous to one another. 

 In Z. Feneonis, on the other hand, the leaflets are usually 

 contiguous, or much more close together, and at the apex of 

 the leaf they are suberect and narrow. Their width, in the 

 largest examples figured, does not exceed one-third of an inch, 

 whereas in all parts of the Eathie fossil they have a breadth 

 of half an inch ; so that while the foreign species, alike in the 

 older and more recent figures, has at least eleven to thirteen 

 leaflets on each side in the space of 4 inches, we have only 

 seven in the same space. The insertion of the pinnae and 

 the stout rachis of Z. Feneonis (not the var. articulatus, Sap.), 

 as represented in both places, seem to be almost identical 

 with the condition in the leaf before us, but that the lower 

 margin is in both oftener shown to be straight, while in this 

 it is the upper. Lastly, there is scarcely indicated in Z. 

 Feneonis any departure from a strictly alternate arrangement. 

 The only other form of considerable size with which the 

 specimen could be compared is Z. Moreaui (Brong.), which 

 differs in some of the same, and in other respects. There 

 seems, therefore, good reason for the description of the Scot- 

 tish fossil as a new species of Zamites. A remark of Saporta 

 on the comparison of different species, some of them new, 

 which he describes, may here be quoted : " II ressort du reste 

 de cette etude comparative la conviction que les Zamites con- 

 stituaient dans la flore jurassique une groupe tres-compacte 

 de formes revetues d'une physionomie commune, sensible- 



