Vol. 58.] OF FOSSIL PLANTS FROM NEW SOUTH WALES, 19 
(India); but Brongniart never figured any species of his genus. 
Feistmantel! supposed at one time that Brongniart’s plant was 
a Schizoneura, and certainly the characters—leaves opposite, oblong, 
entire, with a few, well-marked nerves confluent at both base and 
apex —agree exactly with Sch. gondwanensis from the same locality. 
But Brongniart later described Schizoneura paradowa under the 
name of Convallarites, without any reference to his genus Zeugo- 
phyllites, a circumstance which would seem to negative this conclu- 
sion. Iam inclined to think, however, that Brongniart overlooked 
the similarity between his two genera Zeugophyllites and Conval- 
larites, and that Z. calamoides, if it could be found, might very possibly 
turn out to be the type of Schizoneura gondwanensis, especially as, 
of all the plants described by Feistmantel* from Raniganj, only 
Sch. gondwanensis at all corresponds to Brongniart’s description. 
But apart from the question of the nature of 4. calamoides, at any 
rate Morris assigned the Australian specimens to Brongniart’s genus 
on insufficient grounds. His plant afforded no evidence as to 
. Brongniart’s first three characters, and the nerves were not few 
in number, nor were they confluent at the apex. 
In the second place, Mr. Etheridge,’ from a careful investigation of 
actual specimens from the two localities, has recently shown that the 
Mulubimba plant, mentioned by McCoy, is not identical with that of 
Morris from the Mesozoic beds of the Jerusalem Basin (Tasmania).’ 
Thus McCoy’s determination was incorrect. Mr. Etheridge proposes 
that the specific name elongata should be retained for McCoy’s plant ; 
but if it should be retained at all, it should certainly be applied 
to the Tasmanian fossils, to whatever genus they may belong. 
Various conjectures have been made as to the real genus to 
which McCoy’s plant should be assigned. McCoy thought that it 
was a cycad; Feistmantel,’ although he had never seen actual 
specimens, considered that it might be referred to Podozamuites. 
In 1879° Schmalhausen published a paper on the fossil flora of 
some Russian rocks, now regarded as of Permian’ age. Among the 
plants described were some referred to a new genus Rhiptozamites, 
as Rh. Goeppertt. Schmalhausen afterwards admitted that his 
genus was identical with Feistmantel’s Noeggerathiopsis,® and the 
Russian plant is now known as Noeggerathiopsis Goepperti (Schm.). 
The genus also occurs in Australia, India, South Africa, and South 
America, but Schmalhausen’s N. Goeppertt has so far not been 
reported from these countries. After comparing Schmalhausen’s 
 Feistmantel (90) p. 149. 
? Feistmantel (80) vol. ili, pt. ii, p. 5. 
* Rec. Geol. Surv. N.S. W. vol. iii (1892-93) p. 75. 
* Consequently Dr. Szajnocha’s, (88) p. 237, identification of Argentine speci- 
mens with Zeugophyllites elongatus is inconclusive. - 
° Feistmantel (90) p. 150. 
6 Schmalhausen (79) pp. 29, 32, 49, 81 & pl. iv, figs. 2-4, pl. vii, figs. 23-27, 
pl. xv, figs. 1-11. 
7 See Zeiller (96)? p. 469, Seward (97) p. 325, footnote 5, and Newton & 
Teall, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. liii (1897) p. 508, footnote 1. 
® Feistmantel (80) vol. iii, pt. i, p. 28. 
eZ 
