﻿1851.] BUNBURY — FOSSIL PLANTS OF SCARBOROUGH. 



183 



which is very regular in the one, remarkably irregular in the other, 

 and the wide difference in the general aspect of the two plants, seem 

 to indicate a difference of nature which forbids our placing them in 

 the same genus. According to Brongniart's latest views*, the Schi- 

 zopteris anomala still stands alone. Our plant seems to me clearly 

 a congener of the Cyclopteris or Baiera Huttoni, although distinct 

 enough as a species, not only by the form of the lobes, but by the 

 mostly simple veins. The genus Baiera-^, to which M. Brongniart 

 is disposed to refer these two species, was originally founded on a 

 plant from the lias of Bayreuth, which is characterized by a fan- 

 shaped and lobed frond, with the primary veins dichotomous, the 

 secondary veins forming a network of elongated angular meshes 

 between the primary. This last character is considerably at vari- 

 ance with that of our two plants, which have veins simply dichoto- 

 mous, without any trace (in general) of secondary veins. In one or 

 two specimens of the Cyclopteris Huttoni (especially in one in Prof. 

 Phillips's possession) I have indeed observed an appearance of minute 

 transverse veinlets connecting the principal veins ; but I feel doubt- 

 ful whether this appearance may not be deceptive, since I could ob- 

 serve nothing like it in any of Dr. Murray's numerous specimens of 

 the same plant, which I examined with care. Similar short trans- 

 verse veinlets (like those of Monocotyledonous leaves) exist in the 

 Trichomanes Jloribundum, but in no other recent Fern that I know. 

 Although there is no other point of resemblance between that Tri- 

 chomanes and the fossil plant in question, this example shows that 

 such a peculiarity of venation would not suffice to exclude the Cy- 

 clopteris (Baiera) Huttoni from the order of Ferns. 



I do not perceive any proof that these two fossil plants (Baiera 

 Huttoni and B. gracilis) ought to be removed from the Ferns, 

 although their form and aspect may be rather unusual in that family. 

 The nearest approach to their characters that I know among re- 

 cent Ferns is to be found in the barren fronds of Acrostichum pel- 

 tatum and its allies (forming the genus Rkipidopteris of Schott) : 

 these resemble our fossils as well in the mode of division of the leaf, 

 as in the distribution of the veins. M. Brongniart refers the two 

 fossil species in question to Marsileacece, apparently because of their 

 supposed affinity with the original Baiera. But they are at least as 

 different in shape from the leaves of any recent Marsileacece as from 

 recent Ferns, and their venation would accord as well with the one 

 family as with the other ; nor have they ever (as far as I can learn) 

 been found in connection with anything resembling the peculiar 

 fructification of the Marsilea tribe. M. Brongniart indeed conjec- 

 tures that the so-called Sphcereda paradoxa may be the fructification 

 of one or other of these plants ; but this conjecture is unsupported 

 by any evidence that I am aware of. My friend Professor Phillips 

 is of opinion that the Sphcereda is connected with Ctenis falcata. 



The Cyclopteris or Baiera Huttoni is easily distinguishable from 

 Brongniart's Cyclopteris digit ata, although, in the Scarborough col- 

 lections, both are usually labeled with the same name. In Bron- 

 * Tableau des Genres, p. 34. f Jeanpaulia, Unger, Syn. p. 112. 



