376 O. Feistmantel — Contributions towards the [No. 4, 



This species, the commonest near Raniganj, is also not wanting in 

 other places. It resemhles in shape pretty well the Glossopteris indica, 

 Schimper, but the net-venation is different, as also is that of the Australian 

 Glossopteris Broivniana, Bgt. 



I have completed the description a little from other specimens, to 

 make myself understood. 



The frond is simple, oblong-oval, the apex oblongly acuminate (as in 

 Glossopt. indica, Schimp., while it is obtuse in Gloss. Browniana, Bgt.) ; 

 at base the frond is attenuate, running down into the rhaehis ; the rhachis 

 thick, reaching to the apex; the secondary veins all of pretty equal 

 thickness, all anastomising ; the areoles are all pretty equally oblong and 

 very narrow (while in Glossopt. indica they are more polygonal and larger 

 next the rhachis), reaching to the margin. The fructification of this 

 species is unknown to me, but in Glossopteris indica, Schimp., it consists, 

 as I have mentioned, of round sjDoranges in longitudinal rows. 



At Baniganj the Glossopt. indica, Schimp., seems rarer than Glossopt. 

 communis, Fstin., but both species seem to have been of nearly the same 

 size. In the Kamthis Glossopt. communis is frequent enough, and it 

 occurs frequently also in the other groiips of the Damuda Series. 



From Iianiganj there are known besides a great many Glossopterid.es, 

 which, however, I will describe later. 



Genus Sagenopteris ? Bgt. 



If I am right in placing Glossopt. acaulis, McClell.,* in Sagenopteris, 

 Bgt.,f then the specimens from Mr. Wood-Mason's collection figured on 

 PI. XX, Figs. 5, &, must be placed with it too, as I believe them to belong 

 to the same species which McClelland called Glossopteris acaulis. These- 

 two specimens do not come out quite plainly from a common stalk, but 

 their relative position to each other on the stone would lead one to suppose 

 that they do so ; that they are identical with that species of McClelland 

 seems also to be indubitable, as the net-venation is of the same kind. 



What induced McClelland to apply the specific name " acaulis' 1 '' 

 to a plant the leaves of which are so very distinctly pedicellate, I cannot 

 understand, and I think that in this case there will be no objection to 

 my rejecting this specific name, especially as MeClelland's figure is so 

 bad, more resembling a dicotyledonous leaf. 



It is true that the real Sagenopteris from the Bhsetie and Lias had 

 not so many, nor such distinctly pedicellated, leaves, but the general 

 disposition of the leaves in our specimens, and their insertion on a common 



* Eeport Geol. Surv. 1848-49, PL XIV. f. 3. 

 t Rec. Geol. Surv. Ind. IX. 3, p. 73. 



