OF THE GENERA ZAMITES AND PTEROPHYLLUM. 119 
S. Africa, may have been the long detached pinne of fronds similar in type to, but 
distinct from, Zamites grandis, though the evidence in this case is not so strong. 
In collections of the Rheetic flora of Theta, near Bayreuth, in Bavaria, one sometimes 
notices such a leaf as that figured on PI. 18. fig. 3 (2 nat. size). They are of considerable 
length, 19 cm. in the figured example *, and of linear form, with a fine, rather faint, 
parallel nervation. For some time past I had been puzzled as to the generic identity of 
this fossil, which apparently was not described by Schenk T in his Monograph of this 
flora, nor by any subsequent author. When, however, the English material of Zamites 
grandis came into my hands, I realised that, in all probability, this specimen was another 
example of a detached leaflet of a species of Zamites with very lor g, narrow pinnzm. It 
is interesting to find that the surface of the leaflet of this Rheetic fossil shows numerous 
small pittings or puckerings, recalling those which occur on the specimens from the 
English Keuper. 
It may be also pointed out that several species of Cycad-ike fronds, with very long 
pinnz, have been already referred to the genus Zamites. In addition to Z. megaphyllus 
(Phillips), the following are cases in point:—Z. africana (Tate) t, Z. Milleri, Zigno §, 
and possibly Z. Renevieri, Heer |. The frond recently figured by Ward € as Zamia 
Washingtoniana is probably another example. 
PTEROPHYLLUM BRONNI, Schenk. 
The genus Pterophyllum, like the genus Zamites, is known from the Paleozoic rocks, 
but, unlike the latter, it is already known to be a very abundant and typical type of 
frond in the Keuper rocks of Europe, and also in the Rhetic. The study of the 
Zamitean fronds from the English Keuper naturally led to a comparison with the 
Austrian fossil, first described by Bronn as Neggerathia vogesiaca. The loan from the 
Munich Museum of the excellent example figured here, for which Iam greatly indebted 
to Prof. Rothpletz, has extended our knowledge of this very interesting fossil, and has 
given an opportunity for the publication of more accurate figures than those of Bronn, 
Which appeared nearly fifty years ago. 
The Genus PTEROPHYLLUM, Brongniart, 1825. 
(Ann. Sci. Nat. sér. i. vol. iv. p. 211.) 
This generic name was originally proposed by Brongniart for two Swedish fossils, 
Which are now transferred to another genus. In 1828, however, the same author ** gave 
the following diagnosis of the genus, and included under it such typical species as 
* No, 294, Foreign Plant Coll., Sedgwick Museum, A specimen in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 
No, 15,049, is 25 em. in length, 
T Schenk (1867), + Seward (1903), p. 25, pl. 5. fig. 5. 
$ Zigno (1873), vol. ii, p. 40, pl. 30. fig. 6; Miller (1872), p. 432, text-fig. 136. 
| Heer (1865), p, 144, text-fig, 95; Saporta (1875), vol. ii. p. 112, pl. 93. fig. 2. 
* Ward (1905), p. 503, pl. 111. fig. 1. ** Brongniart (1828), p. 95. : 
T 
