210 MR ROBERT KIDSTON ON 



to the main rachis. These Aphlebia, which Geinitz identifies as Schizopteris Gutbieri- 

 ana, Presl, differ considerably in the wide foliaceous expansion of the segments from any 

 Aphlebia of Dactylotheca plumosa ( = D. dentata) that I have hitherto seen. From 

 this I am led to infer that probably the fern here figured by Geinitz should not be 

 identified with Pec. dentata. 



Also his figures on pi. xxx. figs. 1, 3, and 4, if really referable to this species, are 

 misleading and had better be excluded as references ; and if his fig. 4 faithfully repre- 

 sents the original specimen it cannot be referred to Pecopteris dentata. 



Schizopteris adnascens. 



Lesquereux, in the Coal Flora, vol. i. p. 321, pi. lvii. figs. 9, 10, and 11, figures and 

 describes some Aphlebia under the name of Rhacophyllum adnascens, L. and H. The 

 specimens are, however, unassociated with the parent stem, and in this condition it 

 appears to me unsafe to identify his specimens with those borne on the rachis of Sphen. 

 crenata, L. and H., especially as his figures do not appear to represent a similar Aphlebia. 



I also doubt the accuracy of the reference of the isolated fragment given by 

 Schimper in his Traite d. paleont. veget., pi. xlviii. fig. 7, to the Schizopteris 

 adnascens, L. and H. 



It is also perhaps advisable to treat in the same way the specimens figured as 

 Schizopteris adnascens by Geinitz in his Vers. d. Steinhf. in Sachsen, p. 20, pi. xxv. 

 figs. 7-9. 



Heer figures certain ferns which he identifies as the Cyatheites dentatus, Brongt.* 

 Possibly he may be correct in his identifications, but if so, the figures are not satis- 

 factory. 



Fontaine and White, in their Perm, and Upper Carb. Flora of West Virginia and 

 S. W. Pennsylvania, p. 66, pi. xxii. figs. 1-5 (1880), figure and describe a fern they 

 refer to Pec. dentata, Brongt. The figures 1, 2, and 4 they provisionally name var. 

 crenata, and their fig. 2 var. parva. Their plant, though having some of the characters 

 of Pecopteris dentata, Brongt., does not seem to agree well with that species. I have 

 not seen any original specimens of their plant, and therefore do not feel justified in 

 expressing any definite opinion on its relationship to Pecopteris dentata, Brongt. 



Aspidites silesiacus, Gopp. Syst.Jil.foss., p. 364, pi. xxvii. 



The fine specimen figured by Goppert on his pi. xxvii. is quite indistinguishable 

 from Dactylotheca plumosa, Artis, sp. I possess a specimen of Goppert's plant from 

 Waldenburg, the original locality for Aspidites silesiacus, which was sent to me some 

 years ago by the late Dr Weiss. One of the examples on this specimen completely 

 agrees with the form of the plant given on my pi. ii. fig. 9, while another is similar to 

 that shown on my pi. iii. fig. 12. The figure given by Zeiller in the Flore foss. Bassin 

 houil. d. Valenciennes, pi. xxvi. fig. 2, appears to me to be similar to Goppert's Aspidites 



* Flore foss. Hclv., Lief. i. p. 30, pis. xi. and xii. figs. 1-5, 1876. 



