﻿1861.] 



BUJSTBURY FOSSIL FFANTS, NAGPUF. 



341 



of a large, broad, flattened stem, without distinct character except 

 one single, very large, and remarkable scar. This scar is of a 

 roundish oval form, nearly 1| inch in its greater diameter, and 

 about 1| inch in its lesser; slightly prominent, and well defined all 

 round by a slight furrow dividing it from the general flat surface. 

 It encloses a smaller scar or areola, apparently of corresponding form, 

 but indistinct in part of its outline ; towards the centre there appear 

 to be some slight tubercles or vascular scars, but very obscure. Prom 

 one end (probably the lower) of the large scar, proceeds a kind of 

 appendage, tapering downward to a point, like the downward pro- 

 longations of the leaf-scars in Lepidodendron. 



This sear, by its general form and appearance, reminds one 

 somewhat of the leaf-scars of Lepidodendron or of Caulopteris, though 

 on a very large scale ; but, as there is only one on the whole surface of 

 this portion of stem (nearly \\ foot long, and in parts 8 inches 

 broad), it cannot be supposed to be the scar of a leaf. Does it indi- 

 cate the place of insertion of a disarticulating branch, or of a cone 

 or some other kind of fructification ? I feel at a loss to decide, the 

 characters being so slight. 



The remainder of the surface of this impression is merely marked 

 with irregular oblique wrinkles. 



17. Yttccites? PI. XII. fig. 4. 

 A specimen from Kampti, very imperfect, but with much the 

 appearance of a leaf of an endogen, such as a Yucca or Draccena. 

 Too incomplete for its length to be determined ; but the portion best 

 preserved is about a foot long, and -| in. broad in the widest part. 

 Appears to have been sword-shaped or ribbon-shaped, tapering 

 gradually towards the apex ; the actual point not preserved ; veins 

 fine, close, simple, and parallel, giving a finely striated appearance 

 to the surface, with some stronger ones here and there. This last 

 character seems to show that it is not a leaflet of a Cycad ; nor do 

 I think it was a leaflet of a Palm, for there is no appearance of a 

 keel or fold along the middle. The base is wanting ; consequently 

 we do not know how it was inserted on the stem or stalk. 



General EemarJcs on the Fossil Plants from Ndgpur. 



1. The first thing that strikes us is the paucity of distinct forms 

 in proportion to the abundance of specimens. This paucity is even 

 greater than one usually observes in collections from the palaeozoic 

 coal-fields of Europe or America, and is strongly contrasted with 

 the rich variety of forms presented by most of the tertiary plant- 

 deposits, especially by the miocene formations in Germany and 

 Switzerland*. Everything points to the conclusion that the plant- 

 bearing deposits of Nagpur (and seemingly also the others in India 

 of the same age) were formed in districts which had a limited and 

 monotonous flora, singularly poor in species, though abundant in 

 individuals, and very probably luxuriant in growth. It would 



* See Goppert on the Fossil Fiora of Sehossnitz ; Wessel and Weber on the 

 Brown-Coal of the Rhine ; Iicer, and others. 



