OF THE GENERA ZAMITES AND PTEROPHYLLUM. 115 
The whole of the above specimens were collected by Mr. L. J. Wills, B.A., from 
Mr. Griffin’s North Quarry in the Keuper Marls at Rock Hill (Hill Top), one mile 
south-east of Bromsgrove, Worcestershire *, and were presented by him to the Sedgwick 
Museum, Cambridge. 
Affinities of the Species. 
The leaflets from the British Keuper Rocks, deseribed above, are identical with 
certain fossils from the Bunter of the Vosges, figured by Schimper and Mougeot t in 
1844, under the name Yuccites vogesiacus T. The type specimens are not to be found 
in the Strasburg University Museum, where I have sought for them in vain. There 
are, however, in that collection, a large number of other specimens, which there is every 
reason to believe are identical with the figured specimens, and also with the English 
examples discussed here. At the same time Schimper and Mougeot's figures do not give 
at all an accurate idea of these fossils, although there is very little doubt what they are 
intended to represent, when one compares the Strasburg material with them. 
For reasons which will be discussed here, I have no hesitation in referring both 
the specimens from the Vosges, and the newly discovered, British representatives 
to the frond-genus Zamites. The specific name which would naturally be adopted for 
these fossils is Zamites vosgesiacus (Schimper & Mougeot), but, by an unfortunate 
circumstance, this term is not available. For the same authors, in the same memoir, 
have also figured and described a totally different plant § under that name, the type of 
which is preserved at Strasburg, where I have examined it. Unfortunately it proves to 
be a very obscure impression of a Cycad-like frond, in sandstone, the genus of which is 
quite indeterminable. Despite Schimper and Mougeot’s figures, the nervation is not 
visible, and the outlines of the pinnules are but feebly marked. The specimen, however, 
remains the type of Z. vogesiacus, Schimp. & Moug., and a new specific name must be 
adopted for the Yuccites vogesiacus of those authors, on its transference to the genus 
Zamites ||. I therefore propose the name Z. grandis, nom. nov., in allusion to the large 
size of the pinnze of these fronds. 
We may now turn to a discussion on the generic affinities of this and of other closely 
similar fossils; a subject of much confusion in the past, and the cause of considerable 
difficulty at the present. 
Schimper and Mougeot | regarded these fossils as simple leaves, with a parallel 
nervation, referable to the Monocotyledons, and therefore included them within the 
genus Yuccites, as members of the Liliacez. Zigno** has also figured a Jurassic 
* Wills (1907), p. 29. | + Schimper & Mougeot (1844), p. 42, pl. 2H | 
+ The stem figured by Schimper and Mougeot (1844), p. 43, pl. 29. fig. 4, and attributed to this plant, belongs, 
in all probability, to the Conifer Volizia: see Blanckenhorn (1886), p. 195, and Schütze (1901), p. 245. 
$ Schimper & Mougeot (1844), p. 34, pl. 18. fig. 1. 
I When I compiled the list of plant-remains given in Mr. Wills’s paper (1907), p. 32, I unfortunately overlooked 
the fact that Schimper and Mougeot specific name could not be applied to these specimens. 
4 Schimper & Mougeot (1844), p. 42; Schimper (1869), vol. ii. p. 426. 
Zigno (1873), p. 7, pl. 26. figs. 1-4. 
