XXX ] NEUEOPTERIS 115 



with Rhahdocar'pus tunicatus as figured from the Commeritry 

 ■coalfield^ and with specimens from Gard named by Grand'Eury 

 M. subtunicatus^. 



Additional proof of the occurrence of seeds on Neuropteris 

 ironds is furnished by examples from the Coal Measures of Holland 

 ■described by Kidston and Jongmans* : these seeds are of the same 

 general type as those from Coseley but nearly twice as large, and 

 they were borne at the tips of a dichotomoiisly branched pedicel 

 ■of Neuropteris oiliqua. Grand'Eury in 1904* recorded the associa- 

 tion of radiospermic seeds with Neuropteris fronds though no case 

 of actual attachment was found. It is, however, noteworthy 

 that he speaks of the frequent association with Neuropteris of 

 seeds characterised by six or rarely twelve longitudinal keels, 

 a feature recalhng the sclerotesta of Trigonocarpus and alhed 

 seeds. Until petrified specimens are available it is impossible to 

 refer the seeds of Neuropteris to a generic type founded on structural 

 features: the seeds described by Kidston are, as he says, very 

 similar in external characters to species assigned to Rhabdocarpus, 

 and there can be httle doubt as to the generic identity of the 

 Neuropteris seeds and some of the impressions referred to Rhabdo- 

 iXLrpus which are characterised by a similarity in form, an apical 

 snout that gives an asymmetrical appearance to the specimens 

 and the presence of numerous longitudinal striations^. It is, 

 however, by no means certain that these seeds possessed the 

 morphological features of Rhabdocarpus as described by Brongniart 

 in petrified examples from St ifitienne^. 



The seeds of Neuropteris may, as Blidston suggests, agree ana- 

 tomically more closely with P achy testa'' , a type that Grand'Eury 

 associates with Alethopteris fronds. With a view to avoid the 

 danger of incorrectly identifying petrified specimens and im- 

 pressions that cannot be proved to belong to the same generic 

 type, I have suggested the restriction of the name Rhabdocarpus^ 



1 Renault and ZeiUer (88) A. PI. Lxxii. fig. 19. 



2 Grand'Eury (90) A. PI. vi. fig. 6. 



' Kidston and Jongmans (11). * Grand'Eury (04); (04=). 



^ Cf. also Bhabdocarpua conicus and other forms figured by Renault (93) A. 



PI. LXXXVI. 



« Brongniart (74) PI. xxi.; (81) Pis. ix.— xi. 



' See Chapter xxxv. * See Chapter xxxv.. 



8—2 



