THE LOWER CARBONIFEROUS ROCKS OF NEWFOUNDLAND. 401 
To illustrate the nature of iy objections to the inclusion of the Russian Permian species 
in Peygmophy lium, I = briefly discuss the figures published of these two species. 
Neggerathia cuneifolia, Kutorga.—The original figure of Kutorga * suggests either 
that the fossil was a pinnate leaf, with a large terminal segment and long, decurrent, 
cuneiform, lateral segments, or that it represents an axis bearing a number of wedge- 
shaped leaves, each sheathing the axis at the base. On the former supposition, adopted 
by Kutorga, and confirmed by subsequent figures of this species, it is difficult to see 
any similarity between this plant and Psygmophyllum flabellatum (Lindl. & Hutt.). The 
specimen figured by BrongniartT, which is sometimes erroneously thought to be the 
type, is a fragment of a lobed cuneiform leaf, the attachment of which is not shown. 
Eiehwald's $ specimen, which consists of a more highly compound leaf with narrow 
wedge-shaped seginents, more widely separated, is also detached. Lastly, we have 
Sehmalhausen's § figures, two of which resemble those already discussed, while the third 
(pl. 5. fig. 11) is probably more correctly referred to the genus Baiera. We may note 
therefore that none of the more recent figures afford as much information as Kutorga's 
type, and that these plants have apparently little in common with the species of 
Psygmophyllum described here. 
Neggerathia expansa, Brongniart.—Schmalhausen regards Kutorga's|| Sphenopteris 
interrupte-pinnata as the first described example of this plant. Even if this is the case, 
which, judging by the figure, appears to me to be very doubtful, it does not seem to be 
at all evident that Kutorga's plant has anything in common with Psygmophyllum 
flabellatum (Lindl. & Hutt.) The Cyclopteris gigantea of Kutorga €, described in 1844, 
is much like a Psygmophyllum. I am not, however, convinced that it is identical with 
the Neggerathia expansa of Brongniart. Of Brongniart’s ** figures of this fossil, it is 
very difficult to come to any conclusion concerning those on pl. B. figs. 4a, 46. The 
four figures on plate E are best regarded as the types of this species. The leaves shown 
here have lobed or dissected margins, and are strongly plicated. The base seems to be 
fairly broad, but none of the leaves are attached to an axis. 
Eichwald's ++ chief figure of this species appears to be a restoration, The leaves 
divided, lobed, and plicated. There does not seem to be any 
as shown here are deeply 
clear evidence as to their mode of attachment. Either the whole represents a pinnate 
| 1 leaves decurrent on an axis. 
leaf, as Eichwald concluded, or we have here severa 
Judging by the figure, the former view appears to be the more probable interpretation. 
Eichwald also figures some oval bodies, which he regards as buds of this AD though 
the fact does not seem to be supported by direct evidence. Of Schmalhausen s it figures 
assigned to this species, figs. 8 and 9 on plate 3 resemble Psygmophyllum, while fig. 10 
* Kutorga (738), p. 32, pl. 7. fig. 3. + Brongniart (45), p. 9, pl. A. fig. 3. 
t Eichwald (760), p. 256, pl. 13. fig. 16. 
ma a 9 : f 4 fi . 8 pl. 5. fig. 1l. 
$ Sch 1} usen ( 81 ), Pp. 1 , pl. a: g. 11, pl. . g 3 
J 4 ga ( 38), p- 30, pl. 6. fig. * K g ( )» P , g í 
** Brongniart (’45), p. 9, pl. B. figs. 4a, 4 b, pl. E. figs. 1a, 15, 1e, 1 d. 
Tt Eichwald (760), p. 257, pl. 13. fig. 17. 
tt Schmalhausen (’87), p. 18, pl. 3. figs. 8-10, pl. 4. fige. 1-7. Ta 
