PUNCTATI-SPORITES 



29 



In addition to the nine species listed be- 

 low, Kosanke (1943) also has recorded 

 material of this nature from the Upper 

 Pennsylvanian of Ohio. 



1. PiTYOSPORiTES ANTARCTicus Scward, 1914, 

 Nat. Hist., Report British Antarctic (Terra 

 Nova) Exped. 1910. Geology vol. 1, no. 1, 

 pp. 23-4, pi. 8, fig. 45. 



Pityosporites antarcticus Seward, 1919, 

 Fossil Plants, vol. IV, p. 398. 



Pityosporites antarcticus Seward, 1933, 

 New Phyt, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 311-313, fig. 1. 



Age, "Not older than Lower Meso- 



2. Pityosporites chinleana Daugherty, 1941, 

 Carnegie Inst. Washington, Pub. 526, p. 

 398, pi. 34, fig. 5. 



Age, Upper Triassic. 



3. Pityosporites (?) jeffreyi Florin, 1940, 

 Paleontographica vol. 85, Abt. B, no. 5, p. 

 327, pi. 163-4, figs. 8-12. 



Pityanthus jeffreyi Florin (nomen 

 nudum?), 1927, Arkiv. for Botanik, vol. 

 21 A, no. 13, p. 6. (Systematic status of 

 this nomenclatural combination is difficult to 

 decide, since illustrations needed to validate 

 it were not published till 1940 when the 

 species was transferred to Pityosporites.) 

 Age, Middle Stephanian. 

 Note. — BVadders are seemingly set nearly op- 

 posite though it is possible their distal inclina- 

 tion merely is not apparent in the figures. The 

 proximal cap also is not evident and it may 

 be this form belongs to Alisporites rather than 

 in the present genus. 



4. Pityosporites pallidus Reissinger (nomen 

 nudum), 1939, Paleontographica, vol. 84, 

 Abt. B, p. 14. 



Age, Lowest Jura (Lias). 

 Note. — An illustration required to validate 

 the name has not yet been published. 



5. Pityosporites sewardi Virkki, 1937, In- 

 dian Acad. Sci. Proc, vol. 6, no. 6, sect. B, 

 pp. 428-431, figs. 2a, b, c, d, pi. 32, figs, la, 

 b, c. 



Age, Lower Gondwana, above Talchir 

 boulder bed. 



6. Pityosporites stephanensis Florin, 1940, 

 Paleontographica, vol. 85, Abt. B, no. 5. 

 pp. 327-8, pi. 163-4, figs. 13-16. 



Age, Middle Stephanian. 



7. Pityosporites sp. Florin, 1940, idem, p. 61, 

 pi. 163-4 fig. 17, fig. 18? 



Age, Lower Rothliegendes. 



8. Pityosporites (?) sp. Florin, 1940, idem, 

 p. 62, pis. 165-6, fig. 20. 



Age, Upper Carboniferous. 

 Note. — No inclination of bladders shown. 



9. Pityosporites sp. Daugherty, 1941, Car- 

 negie Inst. Wash., Pub. 526, description of 

 pi. 34, figs. 7 and 8. 



Age, Keuper. 



Genus Punctati-sporites (Ibrahim, 

 1933) emend., S. W. and B., 



Plate 1, figures 4-4b 



Symmetry. — Spores radial, trilete. 



Shape. — Originally nearly spherical, or 

 possibly broadly rounded triangular with 

 slight shortening of the axial dimension; 

 when compressed the spores show no 

 proximo-distal orientation preference. 



Size. — Spores of various species range 

 from 45 to 85 microns in mean diameter. 



Ornamentation. — Various ; surfaces 

 levigate to punctate, rugose, reticulate or 

 mildly apiculate. 



Haptotypic structures. — Of moderate 

 prominence, relative length of trilete rays 

 highly variable between different species ; 

 no equatorial or arcuate markings (con- 

 necting ends of trilete rays) are present; 

 lips of the trilete commissure are never 

 very prominent nor highly ornamented. 



Spore coat. — Generally thin, and, ex- 

 cept in instances where ornamental fea- 

 tures are most prominent, hardly in excess 

 of 3 microns. 



Affinity. — Spores of this genus are 

 similar to those obtained from certain 

 pteridospermic fructifications and from 

 some fossils assigned to the ferns. The 

 spores Kidston (1906) obtained from va- 

 rious Crossotheca fructifications are char- 

 acteristic of typical species of Punctati- 

 sporites. However, many of the species 

 represented by isolated spores have no 

 known pteridospermic relationship al- 

 though there is no adequate basis for 

 separating them from forms which are 

 thus allied. Much remains to be discov- 

 ered as to the affinities of this genus, 

 which is a rather large one, and it may 

 be expected that some diverse elements 

 have been included which will be segre- 

 gated on the basis of newer information. 

 It is quite possible that some of the 

 forms assigned to Punctati-sporites are 

 merely immature and lack their distinc- 

 tive mature ornamentation. Such may be 

 the case for immature forms that in 

 reality belong to Raistrickia n. gen. de- 

 scribed below (p. 55). Immature forms 

 should not be arbitrarily assigned to 

 Punctati-sporites but it is well to recog- 

 nize that when these are present in sub- 

 stantial numbers, they need to be reported 

 and that a superficial resemblance to 



