1894,] of fossil plants, with a list of type specimens. 191 



the pinnules are too imperfect to show the outlines of any in- 

 dividual sporangia. Fontaine considers that the plants grouped by 

 him under his genus Mertensides have a great resemblance to the 

 Me7'tensia group of the Gleicheniacece, and may be regarded as the 

 precursors of that family. He adds that " the only point of 

 difference between our plants and Mertensia is in the absence 

 of dichotomous branching in Mertensides." 



One distinctive feature of Pecopteris (Mertensides) hidlata 

 lies in the existence of a relatively large and spatulate pinnule 

 at the basal end on the lower side of each ultimate pinna. This 

 character is clearly seen in several of Fontaine's figures, but cannot 

 be traced in the incomplete fragment on which Bunbury founded 

 the species. 



There can be no doubt that Fontaine's figures represent the 

 same species as Bunbury's specimen, but I cannot recognise any 

 satisfactory evidence in the numerous figures in Fontaine's mono- 

 graph for the adoption of such a generic term as Mertensides. 

 The absence of dichotomous branching is in itself an important 

 deviation from the characteristic habit of the recent Mertensia. 

 As regards the sporangia in the " globular sori " there are no indi- 

 cations in Fontaine's figures of any detailed structure whatever. 



I have elsewhere^ protested against the use of recent generic 

 names by this author in the case of Potomac (? Wealden) plants 

 on much too slender grounds ; and in the present instance we 

 have yet to seek sufficiently trustworthy data, on which to found 

 such sweeping statements as those of Fontaine on the relationship 

 of Pecopteris hidlata to the genus Mertensia. It should be noted 

 that Stur" regards P. bullata as synonymous with Oligocarpia 

 rohustior Stur, from the Lunzer beds. 



Filicites fimbriatus Bunb. 



Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Vol. in. 1847, p. 283, PI. ii. fig. 2. 



Richmond, Virginia. Trias. 



Bunbury regards this very imperfect fossil as a fertile portion 

 of a fern frond, and designates it by the ''vague and comprehensive 

 name of Filicites." 



Fontaine ^ refers to this specimen as a badly preserved portion 

 of a compound fertile pinna of Asterocarpus virginiensis Font. 

 Possibly such a view may be tenable ; there is certainly a distinct 

 similarity between some of Fontaine's figures, e. g. PL xxiii. fig. 2, 

 and the obscure specimen described by Bunbury, but the preserva- 

 tion is too imperfect to permit of any definite determination. 



1 The Wealden Flora, Pt. i. 1894, pp. 56 and 57 (British Museum Catalogue). • 



2 Verhand. k. k. Geol. Eeichs. Wien, No. 10, 1888, pp. 6 and 8. 



3 loc. cit. p. 44. 



