498 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. 41. 



The semifasciculate character of the nervilles and the unique areo- 

 hition in our type of Gigantopteris is indicated very rudely in one ^ of 

 Schenk's figures, and it was the latter illustration which convinced 

 me that the Chinese material is congeneric with the American, though 

 the areolation shown in Schenk's other figures is quite incompatible 

 therewith and probably wrong.^ The generic agreement between the 

 American and the Chinese plants is, however, confirmed by the nerva- 

 tion photographically illustrated by Zeiller from the fragments col- 

 lected by the French expedition in Yun-Nan in western China, and 

 referred by the distinguished French paleobotanist to the same 

 species. The dichotomous mode of division of the leaf or frond is 

 indicated by the lack of symmetry in the large fragments illustrated 

 by Schenk. 



So close is the relationship between the Chinese plant and that from 

 Texas that I was at first disposed, on seeing Zeiller's figures, to refer 

 it to the same species, Gigantofteris nicotiansefolia; but on further 

 examination it became evident that the specimens from Fulda, de- 

 scribed above, represent a distinct species which I therefore designate 

 Gigantopteris americana. The latter is distinguished from the Von 

 Richthofen plant by its smaller and relatively narrower and more 

 elongated segments, which are comparatively broader at the bifur- 

 cations; by the less dentate margins; and b}^ the generally more open 

 and less robust secondary nerves, which usually are nearly straight or 

 shghtly down-turned, instead of distinctly turning upward as in the 

 Hu-Nan leaf. The ultimate nervation of the American plant is pos- 

 sibly indistinguishable from that seen in the small fragments from 

 western China, referred by Zeiller to Schenk's species. The Hu-Nan 

 plant is evidently much more robust than the other, though one or 

 two fragments nearly as broad as Schenk's broadest figure were noted 

 in the field. In this connection mention may be made of the pres- 

 ence, among the fossils from Oldahoma, of a form probabl}' specifi- 

 cally different from that described above. 



One of the inost interesting specimens in the collection is that bear- 

 ing the small and probably very young leaves shown in plate 46, 

 figure 3. In this example two small leaves appear to have originated 

 at the base of the petiole of a larger leaf, on the left. The two little 

 leaves come together and their midribs seem to start from a common 

 point, but it is not certain that they coalesce. It is important to 

 note that while the larger of the two has a short naked petiole, the 

 smaller leaf, which is bifurcate, like the large leaves, seems to be pro- 

 vided with a lamina to the base. The short tooth-lobe seen on the 

 left at the base of the blade in the larger leaf has its representation 



1 Von RichthofPii, China, vol. 4, pi. 35, fig. 6. 



2 In view of the validity of the generic distinction of the ty p&s I had in manuscript already given it a name 

 not preoccupied, when from consultation of Zeiller's paper I learned of the name pondled by Schenk in 

 the copy used by I'otonifi, as already mentioned. 



