356 Systematic Paleontology 



Zamiopsis insignis Fontaine, 1890, Mon. U. S. GeoL Surv., voL xv, 1889, 



p. 162, pi. Ixii, fig. 3; pi. Ixiv, figs. 1, 3; pi. Ixv, figs. 4-6; pi. Ixvi, fig. 2; 



pi. Ixvii, fig. 7. 

 Zamiopsis longipennis Fontaine, 1890, Mon. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xv, 1889, 



p. 164, pi. Ixi, fig. 8. 

 Zamiopsis insignis Fontaine, 1906, in Ward, Mon. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. 



xlviii, 1905, pp. 511 (?), 517 (non p. 525, pi. cxiii, figs. 4, 5, whicli is 



referred to Gtenopteris dentata). 



Description. — Frond large, bipinnate or tripinnate, with keeled 

 rachises. Pinnules ovate-lanceolate or somewhat falcate in outline, 

 variously toothed or pinnatifid, depending upon their position on the 

 frond, narrowed basally. The proximal ones are more or less pinnati- 

 fid, at times being merely toothed, again the basal divisions may be long 

 and narrow, suggesting Zamiopsis laciniata. Ascending the frond 

 the pinnules are less and less prominently toothed until they are of the 

 type named by Professor Fontaine Zamiopsis longipennis. The ulti- 

 mate form is that shown in some of the fragments which were named 

 8deropteria dentata. The character of the margin is very variable, all 

 the above features being shown on a single frond. The midvein of the 

 pinnules is very stout below, thinning rapidly and finally lost in repeated 

 branching toward the apex. The laterals are long and slender, branch- 

 ing from the midrib at a very acute angle and after ascending, curbing 

 outward, giving off one or more branches at a small angle, all being 

 approximately parallel to the margin. The texture is very coriaceous 

 and the venation is not prominent. 



j^o new material of this species at all comparable in extent with the 

 type material has been collected in recent years and the latter is not well 

 preserved at the present time because of its weathering. There are no 

 adequate grounds for maintaining the several forms which the writer 

 has combined to form this species, in fact their author suggested that his 

 species longipennis might be an ultimate pinnule of insignis and that his 

 species pinnatifida might also be a variety of this species, which is un- 

 Tindoubtedly the case. 



There is some question about the exact horizon as well as the identity 

 of the specimens from Chinkapin Hollow referred to this species by 

 Professor Fontaine in 1906. Most of the species from Chinkapin 



