28 FOSSIL PLANTS FROM NEW SOUTH WALES. [Feb. I903, 



The Author then went on to show that Szajnocha's South 

 American specimens were identical with Morris's plant. His 

 reason for this was apparently due to the Author having mis- 

 understood the special note appended by the speaker on that 

 observer's work, as above mentioned. The speaker pointed out in 

 that note that ' Dr. Szajnocha's identification of Argentine specimens 

 with Zeugophyllites elongatus is inconclusive' (p. 19, footnote 

 4). The reason, which he thought Avould be apparent, was that 

 Szajnocha, writing in 1888, before it was known (1893) that 

 Morris's and McCoy's plants were different, and including both 

 these in his synonymy on p. 237 of his paper, could not have 

 shown (what the Author had no doubt stated correctly in his 

 criticism) that the South American specimens were identical with 

 Morris's plant, rather than McCoy's. The fact that the South 

 American specimens had turned out to be identical with Morris's 

 species, as the Author had clearly shown, was interesting and 

 important, but it did not alter the fact that Szajnocha's determi- 

 nations in 1888 were inconclusive, as the speaker had stated, since 

 two different plants were then known under one name. We owe it 

 to the Author's communication that this point is now satisfactorily 

 cleared up. 



The second part of the Author's criticism referred to a plant 

 from Arowa, which the speaker had named in his paper (p. 21) 

 Aneimites ovata (McCoy). The speaker had stated there at some length 

 his reasons for being unable to identify this plant with Rhacopteris 

 incequilatera, Gcepp., specimens of which Peistmantel had obtained 

 from Arowa. That conclusion was one of the most important in 

 the whole paper. Here again there was a simple difference of 

 opinion between the Author, who had never seen the type-specimen, 

 and the speaker. The opinion expressed in the speaker's paper was 

 arrived at conjointly with Mr. Seward who, as he there stated, 

 very kindly gave him the benefit of his opinion on the more critical 

 questions of identification. At that time they had lying before them 

 McCoy's type, typical British specimens of Rhacopteris incequilatera, 

 and reistmantel's figures of the same plant from various localities in 

 Australia, including Arowa. The conclusion at which they arrived 

 was fully expressed in the speaker's paper. In consequence of the 

 Author's criticism, they had together re-examined the three pieces 

 of evidence above mentioned; and the speaker had Mr. Seward's 

 authority for stating that he entirely agreed with him in regarding 

 McCoy's type as quite distinct from Rhacopteris incequilatera, Goepp. 

 This conclusion should have weight, as on both occasions they had 

 before their eyes the actual type-specimen of McCoy. 



