118 WEICHSELIA. 



In his paper' on the Klin Sandstone Trautschold founds a 

 new species, Asplenites KUnensis, for certain specimens of fronds 

 wMch, without any doubt, belong to the present species ; his figs. 

 3 and 4, pi. xx. are less like the ordinary W. Mantelli forms, and 

 may be a distinct species, or possibly smaller fronds of the same 

 species. An inclination of the pinnules, similar to that to which 

 attention has been drawn in the definition of the species, is noted 

 in these Russian specimens. In some pinnules, e.g. pi. xx. fig. 1,^ 

 Trautschold represents -what he describes as linear projections 

 covering the lateral veins, and which he regards as sori ; the 

 venation in this figure is not reticulate, but the fragment is small 

 and imperfectly preserved ; in the larger specimens no venation is 

 seen except a well-marked midrib. This author does not accept 

 the name, Weiehselia Ludovica, Stiehl., applied by Eichwald to the 

 same specimens which were figured by the former as Asphnites 

 KUnensis, Traut. Another of Trautschold's species, Peeopteris 

 nigrescens, pi. xix. fig. 4, suggests a large form of pinna of 

 similar character to W. Mantelli {cf. Murchison's "Eussia," 

 pi. G, fig. 3). 



Hosius and von der Marok refer some small pieces of pinnae 

 to Lonehopteris recentior; those on pi. xlii. figs. 176—179' have 

 not the stout prominent rachis which is so characteristic of W. 

 Mantelli, and possibly are not correctly referred to that species. 

 The larger portions of fronds represented in pis. xliii. and xliv. 

 are exactly of the same form as the specimen (V. 2630) shown in 

 PL X. Kg. 3 of this Catalogue. I have no hesitation in including 

 some (pi. xliv. figs. 190 and 191) of the figures of L. reeentior 

 and of Weichselia Ludoview (pi. xliii. figs. 187-188) under W. 

 Mantelli. The frond shown in pi. xliv. fig. 189* has no rachis 

 preserved, and the pinnules are longer and narrower than the 

 undoubted examples of this species given in pi. xliii. 



Eenault,^ in speaking of Lonehopteris Mantelli, agrees with 

 Schimper that it may belong to the genus Pteris. 



In a recent paper by Nathorst a new name, Weichselia erratica. 



1 NouT. Mem. Soc. Nat. Moscou, toI. xiii. 1S70, p. 21. 



^ Trautschold, loc. eit. 



^ Palseontograpliica, vol. xxvi. 1879. 



" Hosius and von der Marck, he. cit. 



' Coujs bot. foss. vol. iii. p. 167. 



