Bd. III: m) 
THE MESOZOIC FLORA. 
35 
the frond a peculiar habit which is a sufficient distinction from Coniopteris hyvieno- 
phylloidcs. The pinnules are also, on the whole, narrower than in the latter species. 
The specimen in pi. 3, fig. 10, is the one least typical and most approaching to C. 
hyinenophylloides. It may be that it should rather be referred to that species, but 
the agreement with .S. Anderssonii seems to be a little closer. 
Another species to which there is also a certain resemblance is Sphenopteris 
Pellati Saporta (1873, p. 278; pi. 31, fig. i). The same points of agreement and 
of difference may be stated in this case as in relation to Conioptei'is hymenopliylloi- 
des: and it is very probable that Saporta’s species should be referred to the latter, 
with which it has been compared by Seward (1900, p. 21). 
Sphenopteris Anderssonii is not a very common species but it is represented by 
several specimens in addition to those figured. 
Sphenopteris pecten n. sp. 
PI. 4, figs. 20?, 21, 21 a. 
The specimens figured in pi. 4, figs. 20, 21, are best kept as a species of 
Sphenopteris^ although they show a certain amount of resemblance to Scleropteris 
crassa (p. 36). as regards the general habit. The description will mainly be based on 
the specimen in fig. 21, the one in fig. 20 being indistinct and probably not typical, 
since it represents the extreme basal portion. 
Frond (pinna?) with thin but very broadly winged rachis. Pinnæ opposite or 
alternate, at nearly right angles to the axis, lanceolate with contracted base, pinnati- 
partite. Lobes directed obliquely forward, lanceolate to linear, gradually tapering 
from the base to the apex, which is narrowly obtuse or somewhat acute. Each 
lobe with a distinct median vein. 
As compared with Scleropteris crassa this frond seems to be of a thinner texture. 
The rachis is also much thinner and flattened but much broader because of the well- 
developed wings. The thinner nature of the pinnæ permits the venation to stand 
out better, and a median vein is clearly seen in each lobe. The pinnæ are less dis- 
sected, the pinnules being merely lobes which are usually free only for -/a of the 
distance from margin to midrib. The most conspicuous difference from Scleropteris 
crassa^ however, is in the shape of the lobes (pinnules), as described above. 
Only the two specimens figured of this species are known. 
Genus Scleropteris Saporta. 
The genus Scleropteris Sap. is retained here, in a somewhat restricted sense, 
for the sake of convenience, although it is hardly distinguishable from Pachypteris 
Brgn. The reasons for adopting this course will be stated below, in reference to 
