102 
Oj/cndoptcris ? odontopteroides, Scliimpsr, Traitc Pal. Yog., ISGi), p. -IS8. 
Alctlioptcris ? odontopteroides, Schimper, Ibid., p. 5G9. 
Pecopteris odontopteroides, Carruthers, Quart. Journ. Gool. Soc., 1872, Yol, XXVIII, p. 355 
Tab. 27, figs. 2, 3. 
Pecopteris odontopteroides, Crepin, Bull. Acad. K. Belgique, 1875, Yol. XXXIX, 2d Scr., pp, 
25S-2G3, figs. 1-5. 
,, „ Etheridge, Catalogue of Australian Fossils, 1878, p. 08. 
Thinnfcldia odontopteroides, Fcistmanlel, Boss. Flora v. Australiens, loo. cit., 1878-79, pp. 80, 
SO, 105, 10S, Tab. XIII, f. 5; Tab. XIV, f. 5; Tab. XV, f. 3-7; 
Tab. XYI, f. 1 ; pp. 1G5-1G9, IX-XI. 
,, „ Ten is on Yfoods, loe. cit., 1883, pp. 101 et seep 
Ohs . — This plant was first collected by the Count Strzeleeki, at Spring 
Hill, Jerusalem Basin, and was described in 1815, by Prof. Morris, as Jdecop- 
ieris odontopteroides. Prof. Morris gave the following diagnosis: — “Frond 
pinnatifidly bipinnate, or flabellate ? ; pinnae linear, elongate, acuminate ; 
pinnulse opposite, approximate, adnate, ovate, obtuse, entire; veins nearly 
obliterated.” 
About the systematic position of the fern Prof. Morris was not quite 
certain; the venation reminded him of an Qdonloptcris ; regarding the 
general form, it resembled somewhat the Neuropterls confcrla ; but still it 
appeared to him to be more related to Odontoptcris permiensis.' 
Prof. M‘Coy thought that the dichotomy of the leaf called to mind 
the living Gleiclieiiict , and he therefore called the fern Glcichenites ; he, 
however, gave no figures. Prof. Morris’ specimens were not very complete, 
and the venation was rather indistinctly preserved. Schimper, in his “ Traitc 
dc Paleontologie Vegetale,” lias quoted the species in the same volume 
under two different names, viz., as Cjjcadopterls ? odontopteroides (p. 488), 
and as Aleihoptcris? odontopteroides (p. 5G9), and, what is rather surprising, 
with both different names arc also given different diagnoses. 
Figures of this species were given again in Mr. Carruthers’ paper on 
specimens from Queensland. Both his figures show a dichotomy of the leaf ; 
the leaflets are smaller than in Prof. Morris’ specimens, but still Mr. 
Carruthers thinks both forms are identical. lie gave the following 
diagnosis: — “Frond with a very short and thick stipe, dichotomously 
divided, the simple portion of the base of the frond, as well as each branch, 
pinnatifid ; the segments more or less opposite, quadrate ovate, with the 
apex obliquely truncate, connate at the base ; one vein passing into the . 
