INDIAK JUEASSIC GTMNOSPERMS 



71 



III. Desceiptions of the Specimens. 



A. Coniferous Remains. 



Brachyphyllum, Brongn 



Beachyphyllum mamillare, Brongn. 



All the blocks contain fragmentary remains of foliage-shoots. The leaves of these 

 shoots are small and fleshy, triangular in shape, with a median dorsal keel, crowded, and 

 more or less spirally arranged ; in some cases a small dot-like protuberance may be 

 seen towards the apex of the leaf (PL 7. fig. 6). The name BrachyphylUm mamillare, 

 Brongn. (2, p. 109), has been applied by various writers to coniferous remains of this type, 

 Thuites expansus, Phill. (20 ; see also 13), and Uchinostrobus expansus, Peistm. (6), being 

 apparently synonymous (see Seward, 27, pp. 297 and 298 for further references). As 

 Seward (30, p. 148) remarks, it is not always easy to decide whether coniferous twigs of 

 the above type should be referred to Brachyphyllum or Thuites, and though a distinction 

 has been made between the genera, in that Br achy phy Hum should have spiral phyllo- 

 taxy and Thuites whorled, this seems to be a variable character, at least in Thuites, 

 a departure from the whorled arrangement being frequently noted (30, p. 140). The 

 generic name Sphenolepidium has also been applied to coniferous twigs similar in habit 

 to the Indian specimens, though possessing, perhaps, less markedly adpressed leaves. 

 Oldham and Morris have referred similar examples from Amrapara to Arthrotaxites 



«wJ2c«*s (i9,pl. 32. fig. 8). 



In the present case, however, the generic name Brachyphjllum has been adopted, as 

 it does not infer, like Thuites or Arthrotaxites, any relationships with recent genera. 

 Seward (23, p. 214) points out that the genus *' has been compared with several recent 

 genera ; but we cannot regard Brachyphyllum, with its numerous species from various 

 geological horizons, as more than a purely provisional genus, the actual botanical nature 

 of which is very uncertain, probably more than one family of Coniferoe being represented 



by the forms referred to under this name." 



further, on account of their similarity to B. mamillare, these Indian forms may be 

 referred to that species, which also is regarded as provisional. 



With regard to systematic position, the similarity of habit of BrachyphylUm to that 

 of certain Cupressinea^ has suggested comparison with that group, while HolHck and 

 Jeffrey (11) have definitely referred B. macroearptm, Newberry, to the Araucannese on 

 anatomical grounds, making Brachyphylloideae a sub-tribe of the wider group (i i, p. 75). 

 They do not, however, suggest that all the species of BrachyphylUm should be mcluded 

 under that head (p. 34). For the present, however, the Indian coniferous remains 

 referred to BrachyphylUm mamillare may be considered as of doubtful affinity, too little 

 being known of their anatomical structure and organs of fructification to render more 

 definite classification advisable. 



It may be noted that sections and cut surfaces of the blocks show transverse and 



L L 



