402 DR. E. A. NEWELL ARBER ON PSYGMOPHYLLUM FROM 
of the same plate and fig. 5 of plate 4 appear to be scarcely distinct from Khipidopsis, 
Schmalh. The remaining figures of plate 4 are similar to the specimens figured by 
Brongniart. The leaves are lobed, divided, and strongly plicated. 
I understand that my friend Dr. Zalessky, of the Russian Geological Survey, is about 
to redescribe the Permian species referred to above, and I will thus not suggest a further 
genus for their reception here. As Professor Zeiller* has said of Psygmophyllum 
expansum, so-called, it scarcely differs from Rhipidopsis except by the decurrence of the 
leaflets, generally united to one another for part of their length, and contraeted little by 
little at the base toa common petiole. I may also point out that these remarks illustrate 
the existence of another difficulty, namely, whether it is more correet to regard the 
organ referred to above as a palmately divided leaf, as I should be inclined to describe 
it, or as a compound structure formed by the partial union of several leaves. But 
whatever may be the true nature of these fossils, they are interesting as showing 
a possible transition from Psygmophylium proper, with its undivided leaves sheathing 
at the base, to the Rhipidopsis type, where the leaves are very deeply divided into unequal 
segments mounted on a thin common stalk, 
Neggerathia ctenoides, Géppert+—This fossil was included by Schimper in his 
genus Psygmophyllum. Judging by the figure, however, it appears to be a pinnatifid 
leaf, having little or nothing in common with P. Jlabellatum (Lindl. & Hutt.) 
Psygmophyllum. angustilobum, Schenk i.—Zeiller $ has already pointed out that this 
fossil from China is no doubt a species of Eremopteris. 
Neggerathia flabellata of Geinitz (non Lindl. & Hutt.).—There does not appear to me 
to be any evidence that the small fragment of a leaf referred to Lindley and Hutton’s 
species by Geinitz || is a representative of this genus or species. It is more probably a 
leaf of Cordaites. 
Ginkgophyllum G rasseti, Sap.— The fossil from the Permian rocks of Lodève, Hérault, 
described by Saporta €T (1879) as Ginkgophyllum Grasseti, is no doubt closely related to 
Psygmophyllum. The much divided wedge- or fan-shaped leaves with long sheathing 
bases, arranged spirally on an axis, recall those of P. Jlabellatun (Lindl. & Hutt.), 
especially in habit. I am, however, inclined to exclude for the present from the genus 
Psygmophyllum those plants in which, as in Ginkgophyllum Grasseti, the wedge-shaped 
leaves are deeply divided into long, narrow segments. The genus Ginkgophyllum may 
perhaps be retained for such leaves, and to include Saporta’s species, though it is some- 
what unfortunate that it obviously cannot be made to include also the Mesozoic leaf- 
impressions, which more closely resemble those of the modern Ginkgo. 
Ginkgophylium minus, Sandb.—The description given by Sandberger ** of Ginkgo- 
Phyllum minus, from the “ Schieferthone von Schramberg " in Germany, would seem to 
agree very well with that of members of the genus Psygmophyllum. 'Che leaves are 
* Zeiller ('00), p. 251, 
+ Schenk (83), p. 221, pl. 43, figs. 22-24. 
|| Geinitz (*54), p. 63, pl. 12. fig. 9. 
4| Saporta (79), p. 186, fig. 15 (5); (84), p 
fig. 179; Zeiller ('00), p, 252, fig. 179, 
t Góppert (64), p. 159, pl. 40. fig. 1. 
$ Zeiller (01), p. 461, 
228, pl. 152. fig. 2. See also Schimper & Schenk (91), p. 252, 
** Sandberger (91), p. 101. 
