594 R. KIDSTON ON THE FRUCTIFICATION 
URNATOPTERIS, NOV. gen. 
Barren and fructifying fronds dissimilar. Pinne of fructifying 
fronds bear two rows of alternate urceolate sporangia, which open 
at the apex by a small circular pore. 
This genus is formed for the reception of S. tenella, Brongt., which, 
from the peculiar structure of its fruit, cannot be referred to any 
existing genus. 
URNATOPTERIS TENELLA, Brongt., sp. 
Sphenopieris tenella, Brongt., Hist. d. Végét. Foss. p. 186, pl. xlix. 
f.i.; Unger, Syn. Plant. Foss. p. 61 (excl. syn. S. cysteoides, L. 
& H.); Genera et Species, p. 112 (excl. syn. S. cysteoides, L. 
& H.); Weiss, Flora d. jing. Stk. u. d. Roth. p. 56; Catalogue of 
Hutton collection, p. 108, Newcastle-on-Tyne; Sternberg, Versuch, 
li. p. 60; Lesquereux, Geol. of Pennsyl. vol. i. p. 861; Weiss, 
Verhandl. d. naturh. Vereines d. preuss. Rheinl. u. Westph. p. 79, 
1868. , 
Cheilanthites tenellus, Goppert, Syst. Fil. Foss. p. 240. 
Sphenopteris lanceolata *, Williamson, ‘‘ Anomalous Oolitic and 
Paleozoic Forms of Vegetation.” Royal Institution of Great Britain, 
Feb. 16, 1883. 
Sphenopteris multifida, L. & H., Foss. Flora, vol. u. pl. exxiii; 
Morris, in “ Geol. of Coalbrook Dale,” Trans. Geol. Soc. 2nd Ser. 
vol. v. p. 488; Sauveur, ‘ Véget. Foss. de la Belgique,’ pl. xxiii. 
f. 3, 4. 
Sphenopteris delicatula, Brongt., Hist. d. Végét. Foss. p. 185, 
pl. lviii. f. 4; Sauveur, Végét. Foss. de la Belgique, pl. xxiii. 
f. 5, pl. xxv. f. 2; Schimper, Traité d. Paléont. Vegét. vol. i. 
_ A415. 
: Trichomanites delicatulus, Gopp. Syst. Fil. Foss. p. 267; Unger, 
Syn. Plant. Foss. p. 72; Unger, Genera et Species, p. 1384; Giebel, 
Deutschl. Petref. p. 47. 
Hymenophyllites delicatulus, Lesqx. Geol. Survey of Ilin. vol. iv. 
p. 412 (gives as ref. Brongt. Hist. pl. lviii. f. 4). 
x In a letter to Prof. Williamson on the subject of the fruit of this fern, I 
stated that I regarded S. lanceolata, Gutbier, and S. tenella, Brongt., as the 
same plant. Since then I have seen an authentic specimen of S. lanceolata from 
Zwickau, and notwithstanding the great similarity of the figures of Gutbier and 
Brongniart, when actual specimens are examined, the plants are seen to be 
quite distinct. Fig. 18, pl. v. of Gutbier’s work (Verst. d. Zwick. Schwarzk. 
p. 34), is almost undistinguishable from Brongniart’s figure of S. tenella, and it 
was on this figure that I proposed their union. Some continental botanists, 
with good reason, unite the beautiful figure given as S. acutiloba, Andre (not 
Sternb.), with S. lanceolata, Gutbier. This figure shows the real differences 
between S. lanceolata and S. tenella. Gutbier’s fig. 4, pl. iv., gives the form of 
S. lanceolata, which Andre had identified as S. acuteloba, Sternb., in error. 
To distinguish the S. acutiloba, Andre, from the true 8S. acutiloba, Sternb., 
Andrz’s plate (Vorweltl. Pflanzen, pl. vi.) has been designated S. Coemansit, 
which name must now be suppressed (Orépin, “ Notes Paléophytologiques,” Soe. 
Roy. d. Bot. de Belgique, vol. xix. p. 16). (S. tenella=S. lanceolata, See also 
Neues Jahrbuch, 1884, part ii. p. 295.) 
