116 MR. E. A. NEWELL ARBER ON TRIASSIC SPECIES 
plant from Italy, which he refers to this same genus, under the name Yuccites 
Schimperianus, Zigno, which is almost certainly generically identical with the Triassic 
fossils discussed here. Again the Yuccites burgundiacus of Saporta *, from the Bathonian 
of France, is of like affinity, though the Y. angustior of the same author +, from the 
Bunter of the Vosges, is, judging by its reticulate nervation, quite distinct generically. 
Saporta f referred the genus Yuccites to his group of Proangiosperms. 
The plant figured by Compter $, from the Lower Keuper of East Thüringia, under 
the name Cordaites keuperianus, sp. n., agrees very closely in shape with the specimens 
described here. It is possible that it may even be specifically identical with the British 
fossils, though it appears to be rather smaller, and, not having seen the specimen, 
I have hesitated to unite them. 
Velenovsky | has figured some leaves, which he termed Krannera mirabilis, from 
the Cretaceous of Bohemia, which bear a very close resemblance to the specimens 
under discussion here. That author, however, suspected that these leaves were 
attached directly to stems of a curious, cone-like form, with which they were 
associated. The matter thus remains in doubt, with a distinct possibility that the 
leaves assigned to Krannera may eventually prove to be of a similar nature to Zamites 
grandis. 
My interpretation of these fossils is an entirely different one. I believe them to 
be simply the detached pinne of a large frond of the Zamitean type, with long leaflets. 
It is true that in many of the typical members of the genus Zamites, such as 
Z.(Williamsonia) gigas (Lindl. & Hutt.) from the Lower Oolite, Z. Feneonis, Brongn., 
from the Kimmeridgian, or Z. buchianus (Ett.) from the Wealden, the pinne are only of 
moderate length, and are almost invariably still attached to the rachis, and thus the 
frond, even if fragmentary, is complete in this respect. But in the case of a frond with 
very long and large pinne, the latter would naturally be more liable to have become 
detached from the rachis during the process of preservation. 
The form and nervation of these detached pinne agree exactly with those of the 
better known species mentioned above, in which the leaflets are by comparison short. 
They show the same sudden contraction in width, near the point of insertion, and a 
basal callosity; in fact all the characters included in Schimper’s definition, already 
discussed. 
It is true, however, that, neither in the case of the English specimens, nor the 
examples from the Vosges, has a frond been found with the pinnules attached to the 
rachis. But continuity between these organs is certainly to be seen in the case of a 
frond from the Keuper of Raibl, in Austria, named by Schenk § Pterophyllum giganteum. 
Schenk's type is preserved in the Geological Museum of the University of Würzburg, 
where I have had the pleasure of seeing it, Schenk, in his description, pointed out the 
* Saporta (1891), p. 79, pl. 236. figs. 1, 1a. t Saporta (1891), p. 74, pl. 234. fig. 1. 
t Saporta (1891), p. 69. $ Compter (1894), p. 225, pl. 4. fig. 9. 
| Velenovsky (1885), p. 1, pl. 1. figs. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7. — | Schenk (1865), pp. 18, 19, pl. 2. fig. 2. 
