— 603 — 
to the same type oforganism. Itis probable also that they concern 
but asingle species. As to the nature of this organism I can only say 
again that Iam strongly inclined to regard it as not vegetable. [know 
of no plant type presenting an analogous combination of such ano- 
malous featuresin form and texture. 
It is possible that the genus Hastimima is related ta the supposed 
fossil plant from the lower Gondwana series, figured without descri- 
ption by Feistmanjel (1) as Dictyopteridium sporiferum. The Indian 
fossils include narrow oblong or lanceolate forms, nearly flat apparently 
symmetrical, arched at the border and closely spread with oval or 
elliptical prominences. The latter are less than 1mm in length, all 
nearly equal in size, in arched-radial arrangement, and are provided 
with punctiform umbilicate pits. Professor Zeiller who has described 
(2) the fossil not only questions the presence of the netted nervation 
drawn by Feistmantel, but also findsit impossible to interpret the 
tubercles as sporangia. He is, on the contrary, disposed to regard the 
Indian specimens as roots or fleshy rhizomes provided with caducous 
appendicular organs more or less comparable to those of Stigmaria, 
the punctiform umbilicate trace corresponding in his judgment to the 
nerve trace inthe Stigmarian scar. The similarity between Dictyo- 
pteridium and the type from Brazil lies only in the absence of nerva- 
tion and the presence of salient elliptical tubercles provided with 
minute umbilicoid traces. On the other hand the variation in size 
and arrangement of the tubercles, the marked asymmetry, the presence 
ofa thickened skeletal framework, the specialized characters of the 
borders the presence of both a lower and an upper integument 
differing in character and the development of large alate or digitate 
appendages or organs in the Brazilian type do not permit the 
latter to be regarded as congeneric with the Indian type. However, the 
two are, I suspect, related. 
If Hastimiua is vegetable it would seem that the tubercles should 
be interpreted as sporangia or sporangiferous, as cushions giving 
rise to some appendages, or as glands. I find no traces of sporan- 
gia, or other appendages that would appear to have been attached to 
the tubercles, while the variation in size of the latter and their mo- 
dification on approaching the border preclude explaining them as 
glands. 
(1) Fl. Gondwana Syst., vol. III, pt. 2, 1881, pp. 7,14, 34; pl. xxiiiA, figs. 4-6, 14 i 
vol. iv, pt. 2, 1886, p. 34, pl. v A fig. 3. 
(2) Pal. Indica,n.s., vol. TI, 1992, p. 24, pl. iv, fig. 8. 
