Vol. 58. | OF FOSSIL PLANTS FROM NEW SOUTH WALES. 21 
been described from Australia. Clarke’s specimen appears to be 
distinct from any of the European species, especially in the almost 
circular form, and the broad and even wing. It reminds one most 
of the much larger C. orbicularis, described by Ettingshausen? from 
Stradonitz in Bohemia. 
C. Fossil Plants from Arowa. 
Filicales. 
Angimites, Dawson, 1861. 
Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xvii, p. 5; see also Schimper (69-74) vol. iii, p. 489. 
ANEIMITES ovaTA (McCoy). 
T y pe.—Woodwardian Mus. Camb., Foreign Plant Coll. No. 6. 
1847. Otopteris ovata, McCoy (47) p. 148 & pl. ix, fig. 2. 
1888. Aneimites austrina, Etheridge, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. W. ser. 2, vol. iii, 
p. 1304 & pl. xxxvii. 
McCoy’s specimen, figured as Otopteris ovata, is one of the most 
interesting in the collection. Feistmantel,? from an examination of 
other specimens from Arowa, and elsewhere in Australia, believed it 
to be identical with the European Rhacopteris inequilatera, Goepp., a 
plant best known in Britain as Adiantites Lindseceformis, Bunbury.* 
It must certainly be admitted that Feistmantel’s figures present a 
strong resemblance to those of Goeppert, Stur, and Bunbury, but I 
am unable to identify McCoy’s specimen with either his, or other 
figures of Rhacopteris inequilatera. The general resemblance is 
admittedly close, but a careful examination of the nervation (as 
McCoy’s excellent figure shows) discloses several points of disagree- 
ment. ‘The nervation in the Cambridge specimen is finer, more 
graceful, and less rigid, and at the same time somewhat closer, more 
radiating, and spreading. The nerves also dichotomize more than 
once, in some cases as often as four times. 
In 1888 Mr. Etheridge’ figured a plant from the Lower Car- 
boniferous of the Drummond Range (Queensland) as <Aneimites 
austrina, Kth. This plant again, as he points out, much resembles 
Rhacopteris inequilatera, yet it is different in detail. The chief 
differences appear to be the bipinnate nature of the frond, and 
spreading pinnee, the less stiff and rigid, entire pinnules, with 
veins dichotomizing several times. The nervation of Mr. Etheridge’s 
plant would seem to agree very closely with the Cambridge plant. 
Judging from his description, and more especially from the 
similarity of the nervation, I am inclined to regard these two plants 
as identical. Mr. Etheridge has expressed very fully his reasons for 
1 Carruthers, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxviii (1872) pl. xxvii, figs. 4a 
& b, p. 356. 
? Abhandl. d. k.-k. geol. Reichisanst. vol. i (1852) pt. ili, no. 4, p. 16. 
3 Feistmantel (90) p. 97. 
* Kidston, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin. vol. xxxy (1889) p. 424. 
5 Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. W. ser. 2, vol. iii, p. 1804 & pl. xxxvii. 
