14 MR. NEWELL ARBER ON THE CLARKE COLLECTION _‘[ Feb. 1902, 
with frequent anastomosis. The other fragments are similar, 
though smaller. One shows the broadly rounded apex of the frond. 
The nervation at the apex is similar to the lateral nervation. 
This genus is closely allied to Glossopteris. Feistmantel " remarks 
that ‘a Gangamopteris is a Glossopteris without a midrib.’ It must 
be remembered, however, that since the discovery of the scale-leaves 
of Glossopteris, ‘the presence of a midrib is no longer a necessary 
characteristic of that genus. It is, therefore, in the absence of all 
knowledge of the fructification of either type, extremely doubtful 
whether the genus Gangamopteris should not be merged in Gilos- 
sopteris. Mr. Etheridge? has pointed out that certain forms of 
these genera closely resemble one another, and has called attention 
to the absence of good critical characters to distinguish them. 
Equisetales. 
Puytiorueca, Brongniart, 1828. 
‘Prodr. Hist. Végét. foss.’ pp. 151 & 175. 
1. PHyYLLorHECA AUSTRALIS, Brongt. 
Woodwardian Mus. Camb., Foreign Plant Coll. Nos. 8, 9, & 13 (figured), also 
Nos. 11, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 46, & 55. 
Localit y—Mulubimba. 
Phyllotheca australis. 
1828. Brongniart (28)' p. 152. 
1845. Morris (45) p. 250. 
1847. McCoy (47) p. 156. 
1849. Dana (49) p. 718 & pl. xiii, fig. 6. 
1850. Unger (50) p. 73. 
1869. Schimper (69) vol. i, p. 289. 
1878. Feistmantel (78) pp. 83-84. 
1883. Tenison-Woods (83) p. 72. 
1890. Feistmantel (90) p. 79 & pl. xiv, figs. 2-5, ? fig. 1 
1898. Seward (98) pp. 287-91. 
Phyllotheca ramosa. 
1847. McCoy (47) p. 156 & pl. xi, figs. 2 & 3. 
1850. Unger (50) p. 73. 
1883. Tenison- Woods (88) p. 73. 
1890. Feistmantel (90) p. 80. 
Phyllotheca Hookeri. 
1847. McCoy (47) p. 157 & pl. xi, figs. 4-6. 
1850. Unger (50) p. 73. 
1883. Tenison-W ane (83) p. 73. 
1890. Feistmantel (90) p. 81. 
In dealing with McCoy’s specimens of Phyllotheca, mention must 
first be made of the nomenclature adopted by that author. He found? 
that Brongniart’s description of Ph. australis, Brongt. did not 
exactly apply to his specimens, and consequently he instituted two 
new species, Ph. ramosa, McCoy, and Ph. Hookert, McCoy. From 
his specific diagnosis it appears that Ph. ramosa* only differs from 
1 Feistmantel (90) p. 1380. * Etheridge (94) pp. 240-41. 
3 McCoy (47) pp. 156-57. 
* McCoy figures two specimens of this species, No. 13 in pl. xi, fig. 2, and 
No. 8 in pl. xi, fig. 3. 
