146 
Obs . — This species reminds somewhat of Podozamites Hciclieli, Feistm., 
from the Jabalpur Group in India (Pal. Indica, 1878, Jabalpur Flora). 
Locality and Horizon . — Bellarine beds, Victoria. 
PODOZAMITES LONGIFOLIUS, M‘Coy. 
Podozamiles longifolius, M‘Coy, Joe. cit., 1874, p. 35, PI. VIII, f. 3. 
,, ,, Peistmantel, Joe. cit., 1878, p. 112. 
„ „ Tenison Woods, Joe. cit., 1S83, p. 145. 
Sp. Char . — Fronde angusta, rhachide tenui, pinnulis subcontractis, 
oblique insertis, confertis, ad basim incurvis, deliinc rectis, linearibus, obtuse 
acuminatis, longitudinaliter striatis, uua stria media distincta. 
Obs . — Tliis is the smallest of the observed forms, and is also a rare 
plant. By the more strongly marked midrib it reminds us more of. a 
Cycaditcs , though the other characters do not support this view. 
Locality and Horizon . — Bellarine Beds, Victoria. 
Podozamites lance olatus, Lindley and Hutton. 
Zctmia lanceolate, Lindley and Hatton, Foss. Flora Git. Brit., 1S37, Vol. Ill, p. 191. 
Podozamites distans, Scliimper, Traitd Pal. Yog., 1874, Vol. 2, p. 159, PI. 71, f. 1. 
Podozamiles lanceolatus, Geyler, Jura Pflanzen aus Japan, 1877. 
„ „ Feistmantel, Jabalpur Flora, Pal. Ind. Gondw. Flora, Vol. 2, p. 11 (91 
et figs.) 
„ „ Tenison Woods, loc. cit., 18S3, pp. 145, 14G. 
Sp. Char. — cc Leaves remote, deciduous, entire, narrowed at base, 
lanceolate, acuminate at the apex ; nerves many, forked just above the base, 
then simple and converging to the apex.” 
Obs. — This is a very characteristic form, widely spread in the Jurassic 
formation. It is known from Spitsbergen, England, South Russia, East 
Siberia, the Amur Country, and Japan. In India it is pretty frequent in the 
Jabalpur Group. 
This species was identified as Australian by Mr. Tenison Woods, who 
writes about it as follows : — “ Both these varieties” (P. lanceolatus, var. 
genuinus, and P. lanceolatus, var. spathulatus , Feistrn.) “ occur abundantly in 
the Ipswich Basin ; one specimen showing how the leaves were affixed to the 
parent stem, and, though the fragment is imperfect, it shows precisely the 
growth figured by Scliimper (Atlas, PI. 71, Fig. 1).” 
