54 
T. G. HALLE, 
(Schwed. Südpolar-Exp. 
Although anastomosing' of the veins is not known to occur in any single case 
in any of the Indian or the Antarctic specimens, there is a certain resemblance to 
Ctenis; and the species may be referred to Pseudoctenis. The resemblance to one 
of Seward’s specimens of P. eathiensis (Seward, 1911 a, pi. 10, fig. 45) is so 
great that it might be taken to suggest specific identity. The other specimens of 
the latter species are much more different; and even the specimen mentioned has a 
denser venation than the Antarctic fronds. There is no doubt, however, that at least 
that specimen comes very near to P. Medlicottiana. 
A great resemblance is shown by our specimens also to Ctenopliyllum gratidi- 
foliîiin St 07 -rsii FONTAINE from the Oroville flora of California (Ward, 1900, p. 359; 
pi. 53, fig. 3; pi. 62; pi. 63, fig. i; pi. 66, fig. 3). Especially the fine frond in 
Ward’.s pi. 62 strongly recalls the Antarctic specimens. The only difference, be- 
sides the occasional anastomosing of the veins, seems to be that the pinnae are much 
narrower; but this does not appear to be a character of great importance. The ana- 
stomosing of the veins seen in the illustrations quoted of the American species is 
not mentioned in the corresponding description; and, according to a later publica- 
tion (Ward, 1905, p. 106), the figures are incorrect in this respect. It is possible 
that Cteviophyllnw gratidifoliîtm Storrsii is specifically identical with the Antarctic 
fronds and thus also with the Indian specimens of P. Medlicottiana. The latter 
name would then have priority; in any case the American plant should, if the genus 
Pseudoctenis is adopted, be referred to the same. 
Pseudoctenis sp. 
PI. 6, fig. II, 
The fragment shown in pi. 6, fig. ii, evidently represents a portion of a large 
pinna of some species of Pseudoctenis, although a specific identification with any of 
the known forms of that genus is naturally impossible. 
The frond appears to have been rather thin, the venation is fine but distinct. 
The veins are more or less parallel; the)’ divide occasionally but do not anastomose. 
There is no doubt, therefore, that the fragment should be referred to Pseudoctenis. 
It must have belonged to a much larger species than the other members of the 
genus present in the Hope Bay flora, and one especially characterized by ver)^ 
broad pinnæ. 
Genus Zainites Brongniart. 
The genus Zamites, instituted by Brongniart in 1828, was originally emplo)^ed 
in a wide sense, including a large number of rather different types of fronds, more 
or less resembling those of the recent genus Zaniia. Several characteristic form- 
