354 MR ROBERT KIDSTON ON THE FOSSIL FLORA OF THE 



Neuropteris, Brongniart, 1822, Sur la Classification des tegetaux fossiles, p. 33. 



Neuropteris macrophylla, Brongt. 

 Plate XXI. fig. 2; Plate XXII. figs. 2, 3. 



Neuropteris macrophylla, Brongt., Hist. d. veget. foss., p. 235, pi. lxv. fig. 1. 



Neuropteris macrophylla, Schimper, Traite d. paleont. veget., vol. i. p. 434. 



Neuropteris Clarksoni, Lesqx., in Roger's Geol. of Pennsyl., vol. ii. p. 857, pi. vi. figs. 1-4. 



Neuropteris GlarTisoni, Coal Flora of Pennsyl., p. 94, pi. ix. figs. 1-6. 



Neuropteris Scheuchzeri, Kidston (not Hoffm.), Catal. of Pal&oz. Plants, p. 95. 



(?) Osmunda, Scheuchzer, Herbarium diluvianum, p. 48, pi. x. fig. 3, edition 1709. 



Description. — Frond very large ; pinnae dividing by a series of dichotomies. 

 Pinnules alternate, varying much in shape and size, triangular, lanceolate- 

 acute, oblong-obtuse, and cyclopteroid. Midrib distinct, and extending to the 

 apex ; lateral veins numerous, arched, generally dichotomising four times, 

 rarely five times, the last dichotomy being near the margin of the pinnule. 

 Veins reaching the edge of the pinnule at an open angle. The cyclopteroid 

 pinnules are situated on the rachis. 



Remarks. — Neuropteris macrophylla was described by Brongniart from a 

 specimen collected at Dunkerton, Somerset, which belonged to the Geological 

 Society of London, and in whose collection it still remains. The species is 

 frequent in the Radstock Coal Field, from which some large and fine specimens 

 have been secured. 



Having compared my specimens with the type, I am satisfied of their 

 identity with it. This comparison was necessary as Brongniart's repre- 

 sentation of the nervation of his type is too coarse and distant. In fact, the 

 nervation of Neuropteris macrophylla is much more like the nervation of Neur. 

 auriculata as represented by Brongniart on his plate lvi. fig. a, than it is to 

 the enlarged drawing that accompanies the original figure of the species. This 

 led me to conclude that these two species were identical, but Zeiller, to whom 

 I sent specimens of Neur. macrophylla, kindly compared them with the type of 

 Neur. auriculata, and informed me that Neur. auriculata has a much closer 

 nervation than Neur. macrophylla, and the apex of the pinnules of Neur. 

 auriculata is rounded. As the nervation forms a constant character for dis- 

 tinguishing the species of the genus Neuropteris, Neur. auriculata cannot be 

 united with Neur. macrophylla. The form of the pinnules, at least in the 

 present case, seems of little specific value. A figure is given on Plate XXII. fig. 

 3, of a specimen from Radstock in the Bath Museum. On the left side of the 

 rachis the pinnules are oval, and very blunt, whereas on the right they are lanceo- 

 late. These differences are very clearly exhibited towards the apex of the fossil. 



The posterior basal angle of the pinnules is usually more or less auricled. 

 The various forms assumed by the pinnules of this species will be best appre- 

 ciated by an examination of the three figures that accompany these notes. To 

 Plate XXII. fig. 3, reference has already been made ; at fig. 2 of the same plate 



