﻿1861.] 



BTJNBTTRY FOSSIL PLANTS, NAGPTTR. 



333 



Glossopteris danceoides of Koyle, which is very properly referred by 

 McClelland to Tceniopteris. This Nagpur plant has also a striking 

 resemblance (as far as can be judged from such fragments) to the 

 Tceniopteris major, L. and H. ; but the imperfect state of our mate- 

 rials does not allow us to identify them. 



Is it not possible that this plant, and also the Tceniopteris major, 

 may belong to Cycadece, or at least to the same family with Ptero- 

 phyllum ? Dr. Murray, of Scarborough, first suggested this to me 

 while comparing the specimens of Pterophyllum comptum, L. & H., 

 with those of Tceniopteris in his collection. In one of his specimens, 

 the lower half of the leaf has the characteristic form and division of 

 Pterophyllum comptum, while the terminal half is altogether undi- 

 vided and has the appearance of a Tceniopteris. Another specimen 

 might be taken for a Tceniopteris, but shows towards its middle a 

 tendency to split into pinnules. 



8. Filicites. PL X. fig. 3. 



A small frond, from SilewacZa, unfortunately too imperfect to be 

 satisfactorily described or referred to its proper genus, but curious. 

 At first sight it might be taken for a small specimen of Baiera Hut- 

 toni, Ad. Br. (Cyclopteris digitata, L. & H.) ; but the venation is 

 quite different: instead of numerous, equal, regularly radiating, 

 dichotomous veins, it has a single well-marked midrib in each lobe ; 

 the lateral veins extremely indistinct, but apparently going off very 

 obliquely from these ribs. The lobes preserved in this specimen are 

 four in number; but there were probably seven, gradually diminishing 

 in size each way from the middle one ; not very deeply separated, of 

 an obovate oblong form, and very obtuse. Base of frond wanting. 

 Mr. Hislop has labelled this specimen as " small Glossopteris ;" and 

 I think it not impossible that it may belong to a seedling plant of 

 Glossopteris ; but there is no evidence to connect it satisfactorily with 

 that genus. 



9. Filicites (qu. Glossopteris, sp. ?). PI. X. fig. 4. 

 This is unfortunately a very imperfect fragment, but of a curious 

 plant, unlike any other I have seen in a fossil state, — undoubtedly a 

 Fern, but scarcely referable to any genus hitherto established ; there- 

 fore, rather than attempt to found a new genus on such imperfect 

 materials, I leave it under the vague name of Filicites. It is from 

 Kampti. 



Stipes (incomplete) 2| inches long in this fragment, very broad 

 and flat, bearing in its upper part three leaves or leaflets on one side 

 and one on the other (the others which ought to have been on this 

 side being destroyed). Leaflets very incomplete, more than half of 

 each being broken off; but they appear to have been of considerable 

 size, entire and undivided, and probably of an oblong or lanceolate 

 form — not, however, tapering gradually into a stalk as in Glosso- 

 pteris, but sessile on the main stalk, attached to it by a broad oblique 

 base ; closely placed, so as partly to overlap one another, and appa- 

 rently increasing progressively in size upwards, the lowest being- 

 smallest. The venation is very ill preserved and very indistinct, but 



