44 
T. G. HALLE, 
(Schwed. Südpolar-Exp. 
be referred to the same species, too. The pinnules are much narrower than in 
typical specimens; but this seems to be due to their being rolled up or shrivelled. 
In identifying this species with Pachypteris dalmatica F. V. Kerner, it must be 
stated that the agreement is not a perfect one. The chief difference is in the degree 
of dissection of the pinnæ. In P. dalmatica^ as figured by Kerner, the pinnules 
are quite free from each other except at the very apices of some of the pinnæ. In 
the Antarctic fronds the pinnules are in typical specimens, such as those in figs. 
26 and 27, quite free, also; but in others they are more or less confluent. The 
extreme case is seen in fig. 28, to which there is no counterpart among Kerner’s 
specimens. Yet it is probable that it belongs to the same species as the other 
Antarctic specimens; and if the interesting frond described by Kerner as P. di- 
morplia is specifically identical with P. dalmatica — as seems very probable — 
it would prove that in the latter species there are similar variations in the degree 
of dissection of the lamina. In the Antarctic specimens, the pinnules are also some- 
what narrower than in Kerner’s type-specimen; but the differences seem, on the 
whole, not greater than may be found within the limits of one species. 
Among other species of Pachypteris there is none which can well be compared 
with the present one. Some of the specimens figured in pi. 4 show a certain re- 
semblance to a few of Seward’s (1904 rt) illustrations of the Australian Spheno- 
pteris ampla M’COY, especially to his figs. 14, 15, pi. 12. As the latter are referred 
to Sphenopteris^ however, the resemblance is perhaps only superficial: at any rate, 
the Antarctic specimens cannot be specifically identical with typical specimens of 
Sphenopteris ampla. 
Scleropteris elliptica FONTAINE (1889, p. 151; pi. 28, figs. 2, 4, 6; pi. 29, fig. i) 
and Pachypteris brevipinnata FeiSTMANTEL (1876 p. 33; pi. 3, fig. 7; pi. 4, figs. 
I — 3; pi. 12, fig. 2) belong to a somewhat similar type; but there can be no ques- 
tion of specific identity. 
The specimen shown in pi. 4, fig. 33, seems to be best mentioned here. It re- 
presents a portion of a pinnate frond, in which the pinnules are dentate. The im- 
pression is so indistinct that it is impossible to decide whether it belongs to this 
species or to Thinnfeldia constricta. It shows a great habitual resemblance to Pachy- 
pteris dimorpha Kerner (/. cl), which is probably identical with P. dalmatica. 
The occurrence of both types in association here, as well as in Dalmatia, is one 
more reason in favour of their specific identity. 
Kerner’s Pachypteris dalmatica was found in the Lower Cretaceous strata of 
the island Lésina, off the coast of Dalmatia. 
