T. G. HALLE, 
32 
(Schwed. Südpolar-Exp. 
widened apices. They do not show any trace of the venation. Fructification un- 
known. 
If the present specimen is compared with the figures of Sphenopteris {Hyineno- 
phyllites) Leckenbyi given by ZiGNO, there is only one point of difference to be 
noted, vis. that, in the Italian specimens, the pinnæ form a wider and usually a 
right angle to the rachis. This difference, though at once attracting attention, can- 
not be regarded as an important one, and may be of quite accidental nature. In 
other respects the resemblance between the two forms is perfect. The shape of both 
the pinnae and the pinnules is the same and so is the characteristic manner of dis- 
section of the latter. Both the palmate and the pinnate type of pinnule described 
above, is figured by ZiGNO. In his pi. 9, fig. 5 shows the former, fig. 3 the latter 
kind. The shape of the ultimate segments is also identical. On the whole, the re- 
semblance of the Antarctic frond to ZiGNO’s Hyrnenophyllites Leckenbyi is so close 
that it may with some confidence be referred to the latter species. In accordance 
with modern nomenclature, the generic name SplLcnopteris is used here in preference 
to Hyrnenophyllites. 
Of other similar forms, mention should be made of Stachypteris niimita Saporta. 
The type-specimen (Sapokta, 1873, p. 390; pi. 51, fig. i) shows an undeniable ge- 
neral resemblance to the Antarctic frond, but the ultimate segments are, according 
to Saporta’s figures, more rounded, and this difference is more pronounced in the 
figures of other specimens later given by the same author (1891, pi. 51, figs. 5, 6; 
pi. 64, figs. 5, 6; pi. 65, figs. 8 — 10. — 1894, pi. 4, figs. I, 10; pi. 8, "fig. 5 a; pi. 10, 
fig. 15). It is possible, however, that some of the specimens referred to 
viinuta should be regarded as identical with Sphenopteris Leckenbyi. 
Kp:rner (1895, p. 37; pi. I) has described from the Lower Cretaceous of the 
island Lésina, off the coast of Dalmatia, a new species which he names Sphenopteris 
lesinensis. Judging from Kerner’s figures, h.is species comes very near 5 . L^eckenbyi^ 
with which no comparison is made by the author, and it is not impossible that it 
is identical. Should that not be the case, the Antarctic form must yet be referred 
to ZiGNO’s species, coming nearer to that than to S', lesinensis. 
Some of the English specimens commonly referred to Sphenopteris qiiinqiieloba 
Pl-liLLlPS appear to be fairly closely comparable with S. Leckenbyi. This is the 
case with some of Seward’s specimens (1900, text-figs. 14, 15), which differ mainly 
in having shorter and broader pinnae. Phillips’ type-specimen of S'. q2iinqiieloba 
(Phillips 1875, p. 215, fig. 33), on the other hand, is so different from these speci- 
mens that I doubt whether the latter are rightly identified with it. There can at 
any rate hardly be any question of specific identity between the English specimens 
just mentioned and S. Leckenbyi. 
