March 39, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



343 



though in some cases the autlior's iadi- 

 viduality is probably alone responsible for 

 slight differences of termination in the 

 names. For example, forms referred to 

 Baiera by one would be referred to Baler i- 

 opsis by the other, and so with Ctenis and 

 t'tenidium, Myrsine and Myrsinophyllum, 

 Oleandra and Oleandridium, Salix and 

 8aliciphyllnm, Thuya and Thuyites, etc. 



Many of these genera, when we consider 

 the diflerence in the size of the two floras, 

 occur in both countries in nearly the same 

 proportion. For example, of Aralia we 

 liave in Portugal 2 species, in America 11; of 

 Brachyphyllum, in Portugal 4, in America 

 9 ; of Gladophleljis, in Portugal 10, in 

 America 25 ; of Frenelopsis, in Portugal 2, 

 in America 6 ; of Laurus, in Portugal 2, in 

 America 8 ; of Myrica, in Portugal 2, in 

 America 11 ; of Podozamites, in Portugal 

 7, in America 15 ; of Sphenolepidium, in 

 Portugal .3, in America 9, etc. There are, 

 of course, some cases in which the propor- 

 tion is not the same. Thus, only one species 

 of Magnolia occurs in the Portuguese beds, 

 while in America we have 12, and on the 

 other hand the largest Portuguese genus, 

 Sphenopteris, represented there by 32 

 species, counts in America only 8 species. 

 But here It may be supposed that the true 

 representative in America of the Sphenop- 

 terls type of Portugal is really that exceed- 

 ingly abundant genus Thyi-sopteris, which 

 numbers 40 species in the American beds. 

 This would restore the relative proportions. 

 On the whole, then, it may be considered 

 that the Lower Cretaceous flora of Portu- 

 gal is botanically speaking a very close rep- 

 etition of that of America ; and in view 

 of the fact that In both countries a number 

 of distinct horizons showing the progressive 

 change in the flora throughout that period 

 have yielded fossil plants in such a way 

 that each of these llorules may also be com- 

 }>ared, the Interest in the subject is almost 

 fascinating. 



AKCHETYPAL ANGIOSPERMS. 



Space will only permit the consideration 

 of one other important aspect, viz., a com- 

 parison of the dicotyledonous forms in the 

 two countries, together with those ancestral 

 types which the Marquis Saporta regards as 

 prophetic of that great group of plants. 

 This last question may be considered first. 

 He finds among the specimens certain 

 forms which he refei-s to the genus Protor- 

 hipis of Andne. This genus was founded 

 in 1855 upon some remarkable forms from 

 the Lias of Steierdorf in Banat, Hungary,* 

 which Andrje regarded as a fern and placed 

 under the Pecopterldese. He compares It 

 with Jeanpaulia, which has since been 

 proved identical with Baiera and correctly 

 referred to the Coniferse ; also to Cyclop- 

 teris, Comptopteris, Dlplodictyum. and 

 Thaumatopteris, among fossils, and to 

 Platycerium, among living ferns. 



When I first saw the figure of his Pro- 

 torhipis Buchii, I had grave doubts of Its 

 being a fern and fully believed that It rep- 

 resented some higher type of vegetation . I 

 am, therefore, not surprised that the Marquis 

 Saporta has arrived at the same conclusion, 

 and am highly gi-atified that he has had 

 the courage to give it publicity, notwith- 

 standing the fact that Schlmper, Schenk, 

 Heer and Nathorst have all been content to 

 regard it as a fern of the type of Drj-naria, 

 Platycerium, Allosorus, Clathropterls and 

 the other living and fossil forms alreadj"^ 

 mentioned. 



In 18t)5 Zigno discovered another species, 

 which, however, differs In a marked man- 

 ner from the original of Andra?, having the 

 margin entire. It Is a small, deeply kidney- 

 shaped leaf resembling that of some species 

 of Asarum and was named P. asarifolia. 

 This comes from the Oolite of Italy. f 



*Lias-Flora von Steierdorf im Banate, by C. .T. 

 Andne, Abhandl. geol. Keichsanst., Vol. II., Abth. 

 3, No. 4, 1855, pp. :i5-36, pi. viii., fig. 1. 



fFl. Foss. Form. Oolithicae, Vol. I, 1865, p. 180, 

 pi. ix., tig. 2, 2a. 



