Vol. 59.] FOSSIL PLANTS EEOM NEW SOUTH WALES. 27 



delighted to find that the Author agreed with the chief and most 

 important conclusion at which he had arrived on this subject; in 

 which he was the first to point out that Clarke's plant, wrongly 

 termed by McCoy in 1847 Zeugophyllites elongatus, Morris, was 

 identical with the Rhiptozamites Goepperti of Schmalhausen from 

 the Permian of Russia, now known as Noeggerathiopsis Goepperti 

 (Schmal.). 



The Author, however, went further, and regarded Rhiptozamites 

 Goepperti, Schm., as identical with the Indian form Noeggerathiopsis 

 Hislopi (Bunb.). In this the speaker ventured to disagree with 

 him. The former had clearly shown, in a paragraph in his 

 paper (p. 20) on this subject, tihat, while acknowledging the 

 great similarity between these two species, he could not satisfy 

 himself as to their identity. In this conclusion he had weighty 

 opinion on his side, in the support of Prof. Zeiller, whose opinion 

 he quoted (p. 20, footnote 2), and of the late Ottokar Eeistmantel, 

 Pal. Indica, Toss. Mora Gondwana Syst.' vol. iii. (1. Sup pi.) p. 56, 

 and (3.) p. 118, who also hesitated to unite them. 



The Author further implied here, and also in another portion of 

 his communication, that he was the first to put forward, in 1894, 

 the suggestion that these two species might be identical. But at 

 least one other observer, Kosmovsky, had come to this conclusion 

 in 1891, a fact to which the speaker gave a reference in quoting- 

 Prof. Zeiller's paper above mentioned, for this note of Prof. Zeiller 

 was written specially on Kosmovsky's conclusions. 



The next part of the Author's criticism arose from the fact that 

 two different Australian plants were described under the same 

 name, first by Morris in 1845, and then by McCoy in 1847, with 

 subsequent confusion in the literature. The most recent names for 

 these were respectively Podozamites elongatus (Morris) and Noegge- 

 ratlviopsis Gcepjperti (Schmal.). The Author pointed out in some 

 detail that these two plants were different. But this was un- 

 necessary, as the speaker had stated in his paper (p. 19, par. 2) that 

 this was first proved by Mr. Etheridge, Jun., in 1893. The speaker 

 had also shown that he accepted Mr. Etheridge's conclusions, by 

 urging that the specific name ' elongata ' should be retained for 

 Morris's plant, and not for McCoy's : the true nature of the latter 

 being then unknown. 



The Author was mistaken in supposing that the speaker was 

 unaware of the identification of the Australian species, first known 

 as Zeugophyllites elongatus, by Szajnocha among South American, 

 and by Peistmantel among South African, specimens. The refer- 

 ence to the former would be found in footnote 4 on p. 19 of the 

 speaker's paper, with a special remark on this very subject. jS t o 

 reference was, however, made to Feistmantel, since the speaker 

 was only concerned with Morris's plant as far as it had been con- 

 fused with McCoy's. To have given a full history of Morris's 

 plant, when there was no specimen of it in the Clarke Collection, 

 would have been inadvisable, and a reference to Szajnocha was 

 given, and then only as a footnote. 



