XLII] PSYGMOPHYLLTJM 89 



Other records of Psygmophyllum. 



Psygmophyllum primigenium (Saporta). Some leaves dis- 

 covered by Grand'Eury in Permian rocks of the Urals were 

 described by Saporta^ as Salisburia primigenia and regarded as 

 the prototype of the surviving species. The original specimens 

 are unfortunately not available, but from the published figures 

 it would seem that the species is of the same general type as 

 P. flahellatum. 



Reference has already been made to an American Devonian 

 species referred by Dawson to Cyclopteris and recently transferred 

 to Psygmophyllum. A leaf or leaflet described by Dawson from 

 Gilboa, New York, as Noeggerathia gilboensis^ affords a good 

 example of a specimen that may be a Psygmophyllum leaf or a 

 leaflet of a frond of the Noeggerathia type. Lesquereux^ considers 

 Dawson's specimen to be a pinnule of Palaeopteris. The same 

 remark applies to Lesquereux's species Noeggerathia obtusa^ from 

 the Coal Measures of Pennsylvania included by Arber in Psygmo- 

 phyllum ; it is probably a pinnate frond. 



The Russian species P. expansum and P. cuneifolium are dis- 

 cussed in the account of the genus. The species Psygmophyllum 

 Delvali^ Camb. and Ren. from the Westphalian of Belgium is now 

 admitted to be a leaf of Cordaites. A species described by Sand- 

 berger* from the Permian of the Black Forest as Ginkgophyllum 

 minus has been assigned by Sterzel' to Dicranophyllum. A leaf 

 figured by Schmalhausen^ from the Permian of East Russia as 

 Baiera gigas is no doubt a Psygmophyllum allied to P. Kidstoni. 

 A fragment figured by Schenk from China as Ginkgophyllum sp. 

 is too imperfect to determine, and the specimens from the same 

 locality described as Psygmophyllum angustilobum^ ace, as Zeiller 

 points out, pinnules of a frond of the Eremopleris type. 



A sufficient number of examples have been described to 

 illustrate the range of the genus and the unsatisfactory nature of 



^ Saporta (82) ; Saporta and Marion (85) p. 145, fig. 74. 



2 Dawson (63) p. 463, PI. xvn, fig. 6; (71) A. p. 46, PI. xvi. fig. 172. 



' Lesquereux (80) A. p. 305. * Ihid. PL xlix. figs. 6, 7. 



5 Cambier and Renier (10) PI. vi. fig. 1. 



« Sandberger (90) p. 101. ' Sterzel (07) p. 820. 



8 Sohmalhausen (87) PI. v. fig. 10. 



9 Schenk (83) A. p. 221, figs. 7, 8; PI. XLin. figs. 22—24. 



