3-18 0. Feistmaiitel — Contributions towards the [No. 4, 



The first discussion of this genus we find in McCoy's paper on the 

 fossil botany and zoology, &c. of Australia,* wherein the author especially 

 describes Yertebr. Australis, McCoy, which is something like Boyle's 

 Yertebraria radiata from India. But as both species were founded on 

 very insufficient materials, and as the figure in McCoy's paper is the only 

 existing one, it would be rather hazardous to draw any conclusions ; and 

 yet generally the Australian Yertebraria has both by Mr. Oldham and 

 by Mr. W. T. Blanford been taken as identical with our Indian one.f 



McCoy considered his specimen to be very near to the genus SpJieno- 

 phyllwn as a form with very short internodia, so that the leaf -whorls are 

 very approximate. It is true that it looks at first sight a little like it, but 

 I think it to be altogether an accidental preservation of the common form. 



From this consideration Mr. linger quoted the forms of Yertebraria as 

 Sphenophyllwm ; and from this consideration of McCoy and determination 

 of Unger I think it has happened that there is mentioned from Australia 

 also the genus Sphenopltyllum, no specimens of which have ever been 

 described or figured from that country. 



The next discussion of Yertebraria is to be found in Bunbury's paper 

 on the fossil flora of Nagpur,J wherein the author speaks especially of his 

 figure 1. c, PL XI. 3, of which he plainly says that it cannot be either 

 Splienopliyllum or any one of the Asteropliylliteae, but that it appears to 

 him rather to be the roots of some large plants, and so he concludes — 



" On the whole, then, I am of opinion that the branched specimens from 

 Kamthi, which have been taken for Yertebraria were the roots of some plants, 

 possibly of PhyUotheca,§ Bgt., that they had probably a woody central axis 

 of small diameter, that between this axis and the outer coat or rind there 

 was a hollow, traversed at irregular distances by incomplete partitions, which 

 connected the outer coat with the axis. 



" The unbranched specimens were most likely also fragments of root, 

 though it is not quite so clear." This is the extent of oiu' knowledge of 

 this peculiar genus. 



I think I will presently be able to make some further remarks about 

 this genus, esj)ecially about the unbranched form. Such specimens are well 

 represented in Mr. Wood-Mason's collection ; they are mostly pretty 

 large, but some of them are branched too, but in a way other than in the 

 specimen discussed by Sir Charles Bunbury. 



* A. and M. N. H. Vol. 20, 1847, pp. 145-147. 



t I have a good, pretty large specimen of Yertebraria from Australia (Bowenfells 

 tipper coal-measures) before me which is totally different from our forms. As yet Yer- 

 tebraria is quoted only from the upper coal- strata. 



X Q, J. G. Soc. XVII, p. 338. 



§ In Nagpur it is very likely so, as . there Phijllotheca (in the true sense) occurs 

 plentifully, while in the Raniganj field it can belong to another genus. 



