Mr. Clarke's Communication, 6fC. 



101 



14. 

 Oolite. 



.0. 

 O. 



o. 

 o. 

 o. 

 o. 



o. 

 o. 

 o. 

 o. 

 o. 

 o. 

 o. 

 lo. 



2. fT. 

 Tertiary. 1 T. 



obovata (F. Brauii.) ; Lias. 

 vittata (]3rong.) Lias and Oolite ; Whitby. 

 Zoehingiana (Ettiugsli.) ; Weald. 

 ovaUs (Presl.) Oolite ; Scarborough. 

 major (Lindley aud H.) Oolite ; Yorkshire. 

 magnifoUa (Rogers.) Oolite coal-field ; Vir- 

 ginia. 

 Asplenioides (Ettingsh.) ; Lias. 

 MVmteri (Goppert) ; Lias. 

 Haidingeri (Ettingsh.) ; Lias. 

 Scitaminea (Presl.) ; Stonesfield Slate. 

 latifolia (Brong.) ; Stonesfield Slate. 

 Danceoides (Royle sp.) ; Burdwan coal beds. 

 Phillipsi (Presl.) Oolites ; Yorkshire. 

 iVi7/5om«wff (Brong.) Jurassic beds ; Coburg. 



Bertrandi (Brong.) Tertiary ; Lombardy. 

 Ungeri (Ettingshauser) ; Tertiary. 



No trace of Tceniopteris has ever been found in a palaeozoic 

 coal bed : the erroneous carboniferous citations in many 

 books of this genus — like those of Glossopteris — referring to 

 the occurrences in the Indian mesozoic coal-fields. Tavo doubt- 

 ful species are Permian, 2 upper Triassic, 14 highly typical 

 forms Oolitic, and 2 Tertiary. The evidence from known 

 species is therefore overwhelmingly in favor of any rock 

 containing a typical Taniopteris being oolitic, and decisively 

 against its belonging to the palaeozoic coal epoch, supported 

 by Mr. Clarke. 



In his next paragraph Mr. Clarke says: — '^When we come 

 *'to Yorkshire, wliich is one of the references, we find in 

 " Pliillips no figure of any species of Tceniopteris." At our 

 last meeting I stated that the new Taniopteris Daintreei was 

 most nearly allied to the T. vittata (Brong.) of the Whitby 

 oolitic shales figured in Phillips' Geology of Y'orkshire, t. 8, 

 f. 5. I have the figui'c referred to under my eyes, and now 

 lay it on the table for the inspection of members. As Mr. 

 Clarke, however, denies its existence, there is no more to be 

 said on the matter. The next part of this paragraph, and 

 portions of several subsequent ones, are taken up with some 

 involved confusions about the genus Aspidites of Goppert. 

 In brief, this is so unnatural a group (formed of portions of 

 various genera of various ages), that it has been unanimously 

 rejected by all more modern Amters ; and ^Ir. Clarke's or 



