20 
T. G. HALLE, 
(Schwed. Südpolar- Exp. 
The characters of the sterile fronds are seen in the specimens figured in pi. 3, 
figs. 27 a and 28. These represent portions of bi- or tripinnate fronds, of a thin 
and slender habit. The pinnæ of second order are obliquely attached, lanceolate 
or linear in shape. The pinnules are ovate, contracted at the base, more or less 
profoundly pinnately lobed. The lobes vary considerably in shape, but are mostly, 
at least in the larger pinnules, dentate or crenulate at the apex. In both the speci- 
mens mentioned some few pinnules are fertile. The sori are small and round; 
sporangia and indusium cannot be seen. In some pinnules only one lobe is fertile 
— and then the distal basal one — bearing the sorus apically. Such a case is seen 
in the enlarged figure, pi. 3, fig. 28 a, in which, however, the pinnules are repre- 
sented as too much dissected. Other pinnules have more or all lobes fertile, bearing 
one apical sorus each. These specimens show clearly how the reduction of the 
lamina is in direct correspondence to the development of the fructification. 
PI. 3, figs. 29 — 30, show portions of fronds in which all the pinnules have be- 
come fertile and the laminae according!}^ are reduced to a minimum. Each lobe of 
the pinnules consists only of a sorus and a stalk supporting it. The structure of 
the sori and the sporangia cannot be made out; but there is probably an indusium, 
as has been stated in European .specimens of the same species. This type of fer- 
tile fronds agrees closely with the fossil originally described as Tympanophora racc- 
mosa Lindl. & Hutt. Already Williamson regarded that species as the fertile frond 
of Coniopteris Mui'rayana Brgn. (BronGNIART, 1849, P- 26). SEWARD (1900) has 
amply shown that fronds of the type of Sphcnopteris hyvienopJiylloides Brgn. like- 
wise have fructifications of the same kind. In the case of the specimens in figs. 27 a 
and 28, the sterile pinnules prove that the species is probably identical with Spheno- 
pteris Jiymenophylloides; and the fronds which are entirely fertile no doubt belong 
to the same species. 
Some fragments of fertile fronds are shown also in figs. 23, 24, pi. 3. These 
specimens are of the type known as Tympanophora simplex Lindl. & HuTT., 
which is regarded by Seward as another form of the fructification of Coniopteris 
Jiymenophylloides. The present specimens have no sterile portions, but there are 
some fragments which are intermediate between them and those in figs. 27 a — 29, 
and thus prove that they probably belong to the same species. 
It is possible that some of the fertile fronds belong rather to Sphenopteris 
Murrayana which, as mentioned above, would also have a fructification of the Tym- 
panophora racemosa-ty^Q. Sphenopteris Murrayana seems not to be represented in 
the Hope Bay flora, however; and it is very improbable that this large species had 
fructifications like those here described. It is possible that the old statements as to 
the fructification of Sphenopteris Murrayana refer rather to Coniopteris hyrneno- 
phylloides, as these two species have been largely mixed up in the past. Seward, 
