404. DR. E. A. NEWELL ARBER ON PSYGMOPHYLLUM FROM 
been here included under the same generic name, and perhaps some of the species here 
exeluded may in future be shown to be true members of the genus. 
As regards the general habit, in the case of three species, the leaves are known attached 
to the stem. In two of these, P. flabellatum (Lindl. & Hutt.) and P. obtusa (Lesq.), the 
appearance of the shoots, closely set with long, decurrent leaf-bases, suggests that we are 
dealing here with herbaceous, and not arborescent, plants. P. K?dstoni, ew., however, 
does not appear to support this view. The habit of these three plants certainly is unlike 
anything known among the Ginkgoales, Coniferales, Ferns, or Cycadophyta. 
Turning next to the leaves, I have proposed in emending the genus, somewhat 
drastically perhaps, to retain only those species in which the leaves are flabellate or 
cuneiform, yet not deeply divided or split into narrow segments, aud attached spirally to 
an axis by long decurrent leaf-bases. ‘These leaves correspond to such species as Ginkgo 
digitata (Brongn.) among the Mesozoic Ginkgoales, while Ginkgophyllum, Sap.*, corre- 
sponds to species of Baiera, where the leaf is split nearly to the base into narrow segments, 
which sometimes fork. The genera Dicranophyllwm, Grand'Eury, and Trichopitys, Sap., 
may perhaps represent a third type with very narrow forked segments, corresponding to 
Czekanowskia, Heer. 
The leaves of the six species described here, especially those which are flabellate in 
form, appear to agree better with those of Ginkgo biloba than with any other plant. Yet 
opinions have varied very widely on this point. Lindley and Hutton + regarded P. flabel- 
latum as a Palm. Renault $ concluded that it is possible that the anatomical structure 
will one day show that PsygmopAyllum is a type intermediate between the Ginkgoales 
and Cyeadales. On the other hand, Dawson regarded P. Browni, and Lesquereux 
P. obtusa, as Ferns. Nathorst included P. Williamsoni under the non-committal title 
P Gymnosperms. Seward referred P. Kidstoni with considerable doubt to the Gink- 
goales—a view also expressed by other authorities in recent accounts of the genus, and 
formerly also by Saporta. Schimper $, however, included the genus in the Cycads. 
While there may be a certain resemblance in form between the leaves of Psygmophyllum 
and Ginkgo, especially in regard to the characters of the apex, I am convinced that the 
similarity is purely superficial. The long sheathing bases of the leaves of Psygmophyllum 
are quite unlike the slender petioles of Ginkgo; and further it has been shown here that, 
in at least two species of the former genus, the leaves were borne in a totally different 
fashion to those of the living plant. There is also no exact correspondence as regards 
the nervation. 
Unfortunately, in no case have we any evidence of the fructification of any member of 
the genus, and until this has been discovered it is impossible to come to any definite 
conclusion as to the affinities of these plants. I am, however, inclined to think that they 
are possibly related to some or all of the following Paleozoic genera :—Ginkgophylium, 
hired aur ‘3 decr pm 1s somewhat unfortunate that the name Ginkgophyllum was applied by Saporta to 
and mode of attachment, are very different from those of Ginkgo biloba. This term 
might otherwise have served as a useful name for Mesozoic leaves, such as Ginkgo digitata (Brongn.) which closely 
resemble those of the living plant, but which probably should not be included in the living genus. Perhaps 
some such term as Euginkgoyhyllum might be applied to these Mesozoic i impressions, 
T Lindley & Hutton (31), p. 89. t Renault (’81), p. 65, § Schimper (70), p. 192. 
One ril i 
