52 
T. G. MALLE, 
(Schwed. Südpolai-Exp. 
often they are single, at equal distances from each other. In the uppermost pinna on 
the right-hand side one vein forks just in leaving the rachis and both branches unite 
again some distance higher up: otherwise no instance of anastomosing has been noted. 
If we adopt the new genus Pseudoctenis Seward, it is evident that this species 
finds its proper place there, as was also remarked by Prof. Seward, who, during a 
visit to Stockholm, was the first to point out the anastomosing of two branches of 
a vein as mentioned above. Several other forms now known as species of Ptero- 
phyllum or Ctenophyllum, sliould probably also be brought to the same new genus. 
At any rate, some specimens referred to these two genera come very near the pres- 
ent species, more so than does the type and first member described of Pseudoctenis, 
viz. P. eatliiensis (RICHARDS) (Seward, 1911 a, p. 692,’ pi. 4, figs. 62, 67; pi. 7, figs. 
II, 12; pi. 8, fig. 32; pi. 10, fig. 45). The other species, P. ci'assmervis, described 
by Seward in the same paper (p. 693; pi. 4, fig. 69; pi. 7, fig. 17), shows also only 
a slight resemblance to the Antarctic frond. The species which appear to come 
nearest to P. emifonnis are to be found in the genus Pterophylluni. Some few 
species of that genus described by Oldham &: MORRIS from the Upper Gond- 
wanas show very much the same characters. This is especially the case with P. 
Morrisianum Oldh. (Oldmam & MORRIS, 1863, p. 20; pi. 15, fig. i; pi. 17, fig. 2), 
as noted already by Prof. Natiiorst. One illustration, particularly, of this species, 
given by FeistmaNTEL (1877 c?, p. 59, pi. 42, fig. i), strongly recalls the one of the 
Antarctic specimen in pi. 6, fig. 8. The pinnæ have the same shape and the same 
manner of attachment in both cases; and the veins are given off from the rachis in 
a similar way, too. There would hardly be any doubt of the specific identity of 
these two specimens, were it not that the veins are much denser and apparently 
still finer in the Indian frond. Other specimens of P. Morrisianum differ, in this 
respect, still more from the Antarctic form; and this difference must be regarded, 
1 think, as too important to allow of a specific identification. There is no doubt, 
however, that P. Morrisianum is the species which comes nearest to our plant; and 
if we adopt Seward’s classification, it should certainly likewise be placed in Pseudo- 
etenis. Some other Indian species of Pteropliyllum might perhaps better be removed 
to the same genus, too. 
Some North American species referred to the genus Ctenophyllum are more or 
less closely comparable with Pseudoctenis ensiformis. One of them is C. latifoliurn 
F'ONT., a member of the Potomac flora (Fontaine, 1889, p. 175; pi. 68, figs. 2, 3). 
This species has later been transferred by Berry to his new genus Ctenopsis (Berrv, 
1911, p. 349). It resembles the Antarctic species in regard to the attachment of the 
pinnae and the general aspect of the venation; but the veins are stated by Berrv (/. cl) 
to be constantly arranged in pairs, the frond is much larger and the pinnæ more 
elongated and directed forwards. Some other species of the same genus from the 
