Johnson — Forhesia Oancellata. 179 



its brandlings into wedge-slmped foliage fegments. Neither in axis nor 

 frond is there anything that can be described as vascular tissue, though 

 surface anatomy alone is available in forming this opinion. 



At one point on the axis (PI. XIII, fig. 3), close to and below a 

 bifin-cation, there is a small group of three or four ovate or ellipsoidal bodies. 

 One of these seems clearly attached to the under side of the fork. Do tliese 

 represent a group of caulicolous sporangia or reproductive bodies, comparable 

 to those described by Nathorst (3) for Oephalopteris (Cephalotheca) from the 

 Uliper Devonian beds of Bear Island ? The group of bodies, whatever its 

 nature, occupies the same relative position as that of the tuft of sporangia 

 described in Oephalopteris, though the two genera are not alike structurally. 



On the slabs are scraps, possibly of roots, but almost too indefinite for 

 even mere mention. 



The only plant at all suggestive of Forbesia canceUata I can find is one 

 described by Unger (4) from the Upper Devonian rocks of Oentral Europe, 

 contemporaneous with those in south and south-west of Ireland, yielding 

 Siihenopteris Hookeri, Baily, Arc/ueopteris hibernica, &c. 



Sphenopteris devonica, the plant in question (PI. XIY, fig. 2), was found at 

 Saalfeld in the Oypridinenschiefer. Its axis shows a sculpturing not unlike 

 that of Forbesia, though it is ascribed by Unger to adjoining surface tubercles 

 or papillae. The fronds are very similar in position and mode of segmenta- 

 tion to those of Forbesia, but are less remote from one another, and occur 

 alternately, on the axis. They show, however, a forking venation such as 

 occurs in Sphenopteris generally. In his introductory remarks on the plants 

 of the Oypridinenschiefer Unger states that Richter collected all the plants 

 and sent him drawings only of the " impressions," so that Unger's descriptions 

 and illustrations are based simply on Eichter's drawings. Unger expressly 

 states that he cannot describe the venation of Sphenopteris devonica in detail, 

 owing to non-inspection of the specimen itself. I strongly suspect that an 

 inspection of the original specimen of S. devonica would sliow a close 

 approximation to, if not identity with, Forbesia. 



IIeer(8) called attention in 1871 to the close affinity of the fossil plants 



of Bear Island, situated at 74° N., to those of the Yellow Sandstone and 



Lower Oarboniferous strata of south-west Ireland. In the course of the 



comparison between the floras he expressed the opinion that our plant 



(Sphenopteris, sp., Baily) is scarcely distinct from Sphenopteris Hookeri, Baily. 



Nathorst, writing in 1902 on the fossil plants of Bear Island, thinks that 



Sphenopteris, sp., Baily, is not improbably identical with his Sphenopteridvmn 



Keilhaui. He rejects the identification of our plant with Sphenopteris Hookeri, 



on the ground that S. Hookeri possesses distinct venation. (Here and in 



2d2 



