78 
T. G. HALLE, 
(Schwed. Südpolar- Exp. 
The branches of this Antarctic species show a very close agreement with the 
specimens figured by Feistmantel (/. c.) under the name Pachyphylhim peregrinuin 
SCHIMP., at least with the one in his pi. I 2 , fig. 3, and there can be no doubt about 
the specific identity. It is equally certain, however, that the name given to this 
specimen by Feistmantel, is wrong. Pachyphyllum peregriniim ScilIMP. is identical 
with Araucaria peregrina Lindley & HuTTON (1833, pi. 88), which was only 
transferred by SCHIMPER (1872, p. 250) to the new genus Pachyphyllum of SapoR'I'A. 
A comparison of Feistmantel’s figures with that of the type-specimen of Lindley 
& Hutton shows at once that there is no reason whatever to refer the Indian 
specimens to the English species. FEISTMANTEL himself noticed the difference exist- 
ing between his and Lindley & Hutton’S figures. His identification of the Indian 
plant with Pachyphyllum peregrinum SCHIMP. was based on a specimen figured by 
Saporta (1884) under the latter name, which he mentions as agreeing completely 
with his own figures (/. cl). The number of that figure of Saporta’s is given by 
Feistmantei. as pi. 48, fig. 2. The specimen figured there does not show any close 
resemblance to Feistmantel’s specimens, however, at least not to the one in his 
pi. 12, fig. 3. The specimen in Saporta’s pi. 47, fig. 2, shows, in the writer’s opi- 
nion, a much closer agreement with the Indian ones, and it may be that the number 
of the plate is incorrectly given in FeiSTMANTEl’s work. It is possible, and even 
probable, that the specimen mentioned of Saporta’s should be referred to the same 
species as the Indian and the Antarctic specimens. The majority of Saporta’s 
figures, on the other hand, show forms which are undoubtedly distinct; and it is evident 
that this author has joined under one name very different forms. Some of these may 
be specifically identical with Lindley & HuT'I'On’s Araucaria peregrina. as figured 
by those authors, by SE\Vy\RD (1904, pi. 5) and SciIENK (1890, p. 276, fig. 192 ß); the 
specimen figured by Saporta in his pi. 47, fig. 2 is probably not identical, and the 
Indian and Antarctic specimens are most certainly different. The name Pachyphyllum 
peregrinum SCHIMP., therefore, can perhaps be applied to a small number of the 
specimens figured by Saporta under that name, but not to Feistmantel’s pi. 12, 
fig. 3, nor to the specimens described above from the Antarctic. ScHENK has al- 
ready pointed out (1890, p. 276) that Feistmantel’s Pachyphyllum peregrinitm is 
probably not identical with the English Liassic species; but he does not propose 
any new name. The Indian species may appropriately be named after Eeistmantel, 
who figured the first certain specimen of it. SCHENK (1890, p. 276) also expressed 
some doubt as to the reference of some of FeiSTMANTEl’s specimens to the genus 
Pagiophyllum. The present species occupies no doubt an isolated position in that 
genus; but it seems better to keep it under the old name, since the genus is not, 
on the whole, a very natural one. 
