i6 
T. G. HALLE, 
(Schwed. Sudpolar-Exp. 
The small fragments shown in fig. 3 are somewhat different from the others, 
having more acute and more falcate pinnules. They show, in this respect, a 
greater resemblance to the upper specimen in Lindley & Hutton’s pi. 105. The 
enlarged fig. 3 <7 is somewhat misleading, in so far as the basal retreciation of the 
pinnule is not shown and the edges are drawn too straight. 
On the whole, the Antarctic fronds bear a sufficiently great resemblance to the 
above-mentioned type-specimen to justify the application of the name Cladophlebis 
arguta. Some specimens of the same type of frond have been found in England 
in the fertile state (PHILLIPS, 1875, p. 209; Seward, 1900, p. 117); and the structure 
of the fertile segments has led Seward to adopt the generic name Coniopteris. It 
is not certain, however, that all specimens possessing the characters of the form- 
species have had fructifications of the Coniopteris-X.y'ot, and as the Antarctic fronds 
show no fertile segments, I have made use of the name Cladophlebis. 
Of other Jurassic species of Cladophlebis^ Asplénium [Cladophlebis') argutulum 
Heer is also similar to the present fossils. Some of Heer’s specimens (1876, pi. 19, 
figs. I — 4) may indeed possibly be identical with Lindley & Hutton’s species, 
only it is not clear whether they have the pinnules retreciated at the base or not. 
C. arguta is characteristic of the Lower Oolite of Yorkshire. It has recently 
been recorded by Seward (1907, p. 22; pi. 5, figs. R, S) from Turkestan. 
Cladophlebis (Eboracia.^*) lobifolia (Ppiill.). 
PI. 1, fig. 26. 
Neiiropteris lobifolia, Phillips 1829, p. 148; pi. 8, fig. 13. 
Cladophlebis lobifolia, BronGNIART 1849, P- 105. 
? Cladophlebis heterophylla, P'ont.aine 1892, p. 493; pi. 84, fig. 2. 
Dicksonia lobifolia, RaCIBORSKI 1894, p. 177 (35); pi. Ii; pi. I2, figs. I — 3, 5 — 6. 
1 Cladophlebis heierophylla. Ward 1905, p. 294; pi. 71, figs. 21 — 25. 
Eboracia lobifolia, Thomas 1911, p. 387. 
This species is represented by one specimen only, which is moreover fragmen- 
tary and in a rather unsatisfactory state of preservation. Yet the specific determina- 
tion can be made with some confidence. 
The specimen, which is shown in pi. i, fig. 26, consists of a fragment of a 
frond with the basal portions of several pinnæ. Isolated remains of two other pin- 
næ are seen to the left. The rachis is fairly slender, the pinnæ are rather distant 
and attached alternately, at an acute angle. There is, in these characters, a perfect 
agreement with the specimens from the Jurassic of Europe. The specific identity is 
placed beyond doubt, however, by the peculiar shape of the proximal basal pinnule 
of each pinna. This is much broader than the other pinnules, attached by a broad 
but somewhat constricted base, short trapezoidal, widening towards the upper edge. 
