112 CONIOPIEEIS. 



Other specimens :—Y, 3285 (of. PL XVI. Figs. 4 and '5), 

 V. 3293, V. 3305, V. 3673, 13,490, 39,268, 39;276, 40,469 {the- 

 same form of frond as that from which. Fig. 3, PI. XVII. is- 

 drawn), 40,516, 48,733, 52,597«. 



2. Couiopteris quiuqueloba (Phillips). 



[Geol. Yorks., Srd ed., p. 215, lign. 33, 1875.] 



(PI. XVI. Fig. 8 ; Text-figs. 14 and 15.) 



1875. Sphenopteris qumquehha, Phillips, Geol. Yorks. p. 215, lign. 33. 



8. arhuscula, var., ibid. p. 217. 

 1877. Sphenopteris quinquekia, Lebour, Illustrations Foss. Plants, pi. xxxviii- 

 1892. Sphenopteris quinqueloba, Fox-Strangways, Tab. Foss. p. 135. 



Frond tripinnate, of similar habit to that of the preceding 

 species, but the pinnules are of smaller size and characterized by 

 the narrow linear form of the ultimate segments. The sori and- 

 sporangia appear to be of the Cyatheaceous type. 



Phillips gives the following definition of Sphenopteris quinqueloba: 



" Frond bipimiate ; pinnse long, narrow, with a slightly flexuous- 

 axis ; pinnules separate, petiolate, 5-lobed, changing to 3-lobed 

 towards the apex of the pinna." 



The specimens on which this diagnosis was founded were 

 obtained from Haiburn Wyke and Staintondale cHfEs. Another- 

 species, described by Phillips as Sphenopteris arhuscula, also agrees 

 closely with the specimens I have included under Coniopteris 

 quinqueloba. This species is described as a tripinnate frond,, 

 with the pinnules "entirely pinnatifid, the lobes decomposed 

 into petiolate quinquepartite leaflets, set on a fiexuous axis." 

 A smaller specimen is spoken of by Phillips as S. arhuscula, var. ; 

 this, I believe, is probably identical with S. quinqueloba : two- 

 figures are given of this variety, one of which represents the 

 "extremity of a pinna with only the principal veins preserved," 

 exactly as in the accompanying enlarged drawing (Text-fig. 14) 

 of a specimen in the Manchester Museum. 



In all probability S. arhuscula, var., and S. quinqueloba are 

 specifically identical, while >Si. arhuscula may, perhaps, be referred, 

 to S. Mwrrayana (cf. PI. XXI. Fig. 5). 



