OF THE GENERA ZAMITES AND PTEROPHYLLUM, 121 
attached to the fragment of the rachis seen below (cf. Pl. 19. fig. 4). The nervation 
is not very distinet neither in this nor any of the other leaflets, though the course of 
the veins is quite clear. The dichotomy of the veins at the base, and occasionally 
throughout the Jamina, cannot be clearly made out, though there is good reason to 
suppose that it occurs. There is a possibility that this leaflet may have been the 
terminal pinna of the frond, but this again is a point which cannot be satisfactorily 
decided. In the photograph on Plate 19. fig. 4 it is shown natural size, C 
The next highest pinna on the right-hand side is shorter, the length being 4/4 cm., 
and its greatest breadth about 4 em. At the base it appears to be distinetly narrowed 
near the point of attachment, but its width here may well have been somewhat greater in 
the living state. It is, in all probability, still attached to the rachis (cf. Pl. 19. fig. 4). 
The next lowest leaflet is almost certainly attached for a distance of about 1:2 cm., 
though a part of the base is missing (cf. Pl. 19. fig. 4). It is 138 em. long and 5:4 em. 
across at its broadest part. There is no trace of any callosity at the base in either this 
instance or that of the pinna next above. The unsymmetrical nature of the apex is 
clearly seen. r 
The two lower pinnæ, each about 5 em. broad at their widest part, are imperfect, but 
show the apical characters very well. 
The photograph on Plate 19. fig. 4 shows a portion of the same specimen slightly 
below natural size. In addition to the terminal pinna, the rachis (r.), with two pinnze 
still attached, is clearly seen. 
Affinities of the Species. 
The generic attribution of this fossil raises a difficult question, and one on which there 
has already been some difference of opinion. Bronn*, in his original description 
published in 1858, regarded it as the same plant as Schimper and Mougeot's Ywecites 
rogesiacus, here described under the name Zamites grandis, nom. nov., though he admitted 
that at first sight it appears to be very different. There can be no question that the 
Raibl plant is not specifically identical with the specimens from the Bunter of the 
Vosges and the Keuper of England, as all authorities are agreed, but the problem 
remains as to whether it is generically distinct, and, if so, the genus in which it should 
be placed, 
Attention may here be called to one or two points in connection with Bronn's figures. 
In the first place, as Schenk t has already pointed out, the leatlets are quite simple and 
entire, and not lobed as Bronn’s specimens indicated; an appearance no doubt due to 
bad preservation, Although one of the examples figured by that author? shows a rachis 
With several, rather distant, leaflets attached, Bronn inclined to the opinion that, on the 
Whole, it represented a shoot, bearing leaves arranged as in Newggerathia. Schimper § 
compared it with Podozamites, and instituted a new genus Macropterygium for its 
reception. 
* bonn (1858), p. 129. + Schenk (1865), p. 18. 
+ Bronn (1858), pl. 6. fig. 1. § Schimper (1869), vol. ii. p. 132. 
