10 T. G. HALLE, MESOZOIC DEPOSITS AND FLORAS OF PATAGONIA AND TIERRA DEL FUEGO. 
Owing to the poor preservation of the Tekenika specimens a definite identifica- 
tion with any of the known species is impossible. It would appear, however, as if 
they were most closely comparable with the Indian species, Dictyozamites falcatus 
(Morr.) OrpH. There is, indeed, nothing in the characters of our specimens, as far 
as they can be made out, that is not consistent with their identification with D. 
falcatus, but owing to the poor quality of the material it is advisable to refrain from 
a definite determination. 
Coniferous fragment. 
PI rfgs. 33 
The minute fragment shown in pl. 5, figs. 34 and 35, is no doubt the top of 
a very slender branch of a conifer. It shows some few lanceolate pointed leaves 
apparently closely adpressed to an axis which is, however, not seen. It would appear 
as if the leaves had a decussate arrangement; but it is not possible to be quite sure 
even on this point. There are several Mesozoic conifers known which show a very 
similar habit and which may have branchlets almost as slender as this specimen. A 
determination of the latter, however, is naturally out of question. 
Age and correlation of the plant-bearing deposit. 
For a determination of the age of the plant-bearing deposit at Bahia Tekenika 
only the following plant-remains are as yet available: 
Sphenopteris sp. [ef. Sphenopteris (Coniopteris?) hymenophylloides BRen.]. 
> ? sp. 
Dictyozamites ef. falcatus (MORR.) OLDH. 
Coniferous fragment. 
Although none of these fossils can be identified with any known species, one 
of them fortunately is sufficiently characteristic to ensure a rough determination of 
the age. The genus Dictyozamites, which is now known from several districts, has 
hitherto been strictly confined to the Jurassie. D. falcatus, with which species the 
Tekenika specimens appear to be most closely comparable, was first described from 
the Rajmahal Group of the Indian Gondwanas, but was later recorded also from the 
somewhat younger Sripermatur Group of the same series. The Rajmahal Group is re- 
garded by FRISTMANTEL as Liassic; but, as I have suggested elsewhere (HALLE 1913, 
p- 102), it may possibly be somewhat younger. Since the species has been found to 
be rather more common in the somewhat younger Sripermatur Group (FRISTMANTEL 
1880 b, p. XXVT), it appears safe to consider it as characteristic of the Lower and 
Middle Jurassic. This opinion is confirmed also by the fact that one of the Japanese 
forms, which has been described as a variety of the same species, occurs in beds 
held to be of Middle Jurassic age. This species is of the greatest importance in the 
present case, because of the agreement with it shown by the Tekenika specimens. 
