KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 51. N:o 3. 39 
those specimens of Baiera australis with which a comparison has been made above. 
The specific identity appears indeed highly probable: the only reason why the Pata- 
gonian form has not definitely been referred to Baiera australis is that I have not 
been able to compare it with the first specimen of the latter, figured by STIRLING 
INLS92 (lc). 
The present form is a common one in locality c at Rio Fösiles. Typical Baiera 
australis has hitherto been recorded only from Victoria. 
BlSSNENeSNoN Oc 
There may be mentioned here some other specimens of which the classification 
is very problematic: the best among them are figured in pl. 5, figs. 5 and 6. It has 
been mentioned above that it is often difficult to distinguish between Baiera and 
Ginkgo: such is the case in regard to these specimens. Whereas the former genus, 
as mentioned above, is represented by several typical specimens, Ginkgo cannot with 
certainty be stated to occur in this flora. Both the specimens mentioned here, 
however, show at least a close approach to the latter genus. In the specimen in 
pl. 5, fig. 6, both the angle at the base and the stalk strongly recall Ginkgo. The 
dissection of the lamina reaches right down to its base: this is a type which occurs 
in Ginkgo, too, but is more common in Batera. 'The resemblance to and association 
with the typical specimens of Baiera, however, make it seem more probable that this 
leaf belongs to the species here described as B. cf. australis. The little specimen in 
pl. 5, fig. 5, has a rather Ginkgo-like habit. The angle of the edges at the base 
exceeds 180”, but the petiole is not very distinct. The segments are 5 in number 
in each half. The specimen shows a striking resemblance to Ginkgo sibirica HEER, 
as does also the specimen in pl. 5, fig. 3, which has been with some hesitation re- 
ferred to the form here described as B. cf. australis. It is impossible to form any 
definite opinion as to which generic name should be applied to these specimens; but 
an attribution to Baiera would appear more plausible. 
Podozamites? sp. 
PIN fest lr 19; 
The specimens shown in pl. 5, figs. 17—19 should possibly be referred to Podo- 
zamites, being in that case the only representatives of that genus in the San Martin 
flora. They consist of isolated pinnae or rather leaves — the supposed zamitean 
fronds of Podozamites being, according to NATHORST (1911), more probably branches 
of coniferous affinities. The specimens have a rather varying length and are lance- 
olate to linear. The venation is seen in the specimen in pl. 5, fig. 18: it differs in 
no respect from that of Podozamites. Though it is probable that these fragments 
really belong to Podozamites, it is not excluded that they may represent pinnae of a 
Zamites-like frond. The question of their affinity must therefore remain open. 
The specimens were found in locality b, associated with Gleichenites San-Martini. 
