Bd. III: 14) 
THE MESOZOIC FLORA. 
79 
Pagiophyllum sp. 
PL 8, fig. 41. 
The small specimen figured in pi. 8, fig. 41, is no doubt a Pagiophyllum; but 
it hardly affords sufficient material for specific determination. The leaves are thick 
and keeled and form a wide angle to the axis. It is evident that the specimen re- 
presents the top of a branch, perhaps a very young one. There is some resem- 
blance to Pagiophyllum cirinicum var. nncinatum Sap. (1884, p. 406, pis. 52, 53) 
and P. Zignoi Sap. (ibid., p. 410; pi. 55); but it probably does not amount to speci- 
fic identity. 
Pagiophyllum sp. 
PI. 9, figs. 5 0, 6. 
The specimen at a in fig. 5, pi. 9, should doubtless be referred to Pagiophyllum : 
but owing to the scantiness of the material, it is better not to attempt a specific 
identification with any known species. The leaves are directed more upwards than 
in the preceding form, and are more pointed; otherwise there is a fairly close re- 
semblance. It is not probable that the two specimens are specifically identical, how- 
ever; nor is it possible to establish any close comparison of the specimen in pi. 9, 
fig. 5 a^ with any known species of Pagiophyllum. 
Genus Brachyphyllnm Brongniakt. 
Brachyphyllum sp. 
PI. 8, fig. 42; pi. 9, figs. 14 — 16. 
There are several specimens in the collection which may be named Brachy- 
phyllum: but they are all very small and fragmentary. It is impossible, therefore, 
to identify them with any known form of that provisional genus, or to decide 
whether they belong to one or more species. 
The clearest specimen is the little fragment shown in pi. 9 , fig- 14. It is an 
impression of a very slender branchlet densely covered with thick leaves. These 
seem to be adnate to the axis, forming thick rhomboidal cushions, which bor- 
der so closely on each other that the surface of the branch appears to be di- 
vided up into more or less regular areoles. In each areole there can be seen a little 
depression, nearer the apical end, which is evidently caused by the conical projecting 
portion of the leaf. The leaves thus seem to be con.structed on the same plan as 
those of, for instance, Br. nepos Saporta (1884). There is some considerable varia- 
tion in detail in respect to the shape of the areoles. In the specimen mentioned 
