10 MR, NEWELL ARBER ON THE CLARKE COLLECTION [FF eb. 1902, 
Aspidites alatus. 
1836. Goeppert, ‘Syst. Fil. Foss.’ p. 358. [See also Nova Acta Acad. Leop.-Carol. 
Nat. Cur. vol. xvii, suppl. | 
Sphenopteris alata var. ewxilis. 
1845. Morris (45) p. 246 & pl. vii, figs. 4 & 4a. 
1878. Feistmantel (78) p. 88. 
1883. Tenison-Woods (83) p. 90. 
1890. Feistmantel (90) p. 89. 
It is curious that many of the authors who have mentioned this 
fossil have fallen into error in some form or other, and the confusion 
that has arisen is considerable. The primary cause of this is due 
to the fact that Brongniart ‘ described, and figured in 1828, two ferns 
with the specific title wlata—(1) Pecopteris alata (p. 361 & pl. exxvii) 
from New South Wales, and (2) Sphenopteris alata (p. 180 & pl. xlviti, 
fig. 4) from Germany. Some years later Sternberg? transferred the 
Australian plant to the genus Sphenopteris, so that in his ‘ Flora 
der Vorwelt’ these two ferns are both described as Sphenopteris 
alata, and would, according to modern notation, be distinguished as 
(1) Sph. alata (Brongt.), and (2) Sph. alata, Brongt. The German 
type (2) is now known as Sph. Grandini (Goepp.),* and the only 
Sphenopterid with the specific title alata is the Australian plant 
Sph. alata (Brongt.). 
Clarke* and others have confused the Australian plant with 
Sph. Grandini (Goepp.). But the confusion does not end here. In 
1845 Morris ’ described and figured a fossil under the name Spheno- 
pteris alata var. exilis, Morris, which he expressly stated to be 
synonymous with Pecopteris alata, Brongt. [now known as Sph. 
alata (Brongt.)|, and Aspidites alatus, Goepp. Morris observed 
that 
‘this interesting species of fossil fern appears more nearly related to 
Sphenopteris than Pecopteris, and is easily distinguished by the slender and 
decurrent pinnula and the membranous or alate margin of the principal 
rhachis, as is observed in the recent species of Hymenophyllum.’ 
By the modern writers, such as Feistmantel and Tenison-Woods, 
Morris’s plant is regarded as distinct from the original description 
of Brongniart, whereas the two are identical, as Morris shows by 
his synonyms. There is nothing in Morris’s description of his 
plant to distinguish it from the Sphenopteris alata of Brongniart, 
and his somewhat unfortunate choice of the specific title ‘ alata var. 
exilis’ was probably made in order to get over the difficulty of two 
plants bearing the same name ‘ Sphenopteris alata, to which genus, 
as he says, the fossil must be referred. The specimen described 
by Morris is not in any sense a type. The real type of Sphenopteris 
alata (Brongt.) is, or was, in the Museum of the University of 
Edinburgh. 
McCoy ° mentions the occurrence of Sph. alata (Brongt.) in the 
Mulubimba Sandstone; and a large specimen in the Clarke Collection, 
! Brongniart (28)?. 
? Sternberg, ‘ Vers. d. Flora d. Vorwelt’ (1820-38) pt. ii, pp. 59 & 131. 
E Schimper (69) vol. i, p. 404. * Clarke (78) pp. 74 & 128. 
6 
Morris (45) p. 246 & pl. vii, figs. 4 & 4a. 
McCoy (47) p. 149. 
