distinguished by a hrocliidodroinic venation, with few very prominent and 
rather distant secondary veins. The loops are very apparent. The tertiary 
veins are mostly not preserved. I find that the leaf fossil here figured, 
which was collected by Mr. MacCormick near Hobart, as regards its form 
( i.e ., as far as it can be restored), as well as in the venation and texture, shows 
a striking resemblance to the leaves of Echitonium macrospermum , Ett., 
from Lcoben*. The leaf from Ilobart, however, ought to have had a some- 
what larger number of secondary veins, which are also more approximate 
than in the leaves from Leoben. In this respect it approaches my E. 
lanceolatum. This leaf fossil from Hobart, therefore, would seem to indicate 
a peculiar species of Echitonium, the further elucidation of which must 
depend upon future research and more complete specimens. 
Locality and Horizon. — Near Ilobart, Tasmania; in yellow Travertin 
of Upper Tertiary age. 
Collection . — British Museum (Natural History Branch). 
E 0 R A CINEJE. 
CORDIA. TASMANICA, Sp. UOV. 
Plate V, Figs. 3-5. 
Sp. Char. — C. fructibus drupaceis, putamine oviforme acuto, irregu- 
lariter scrobiculato, quadriloculare ; foliis rigide coriaceis scabris, ovatis vel 
ellipticis, rotundato-obtusis, integerrimis ; nervatione camptodroma ; nervo 
primario valido apicem versus attenuato ; nervis secundariis prominentibus, 
*An Apocynaccous species from the Arctic Tertiary Flora, which approaches the Echitonium macrospermum 
very closely is : — ■ 
Echitonium lanceolatum, sp. nov. ( Laurus jRcvssii, Heer, loc. cit., vol. vi, p. 2, PI. Ill, fig. 14). 
Sp. Char . — Foliis breviter petiolatis coriaceis lanceolatis, basi acutiusculis, margine undulatis ; nervatione, 
brochiilodroma ; nervo primario firmo ; nervis secundariis sparsis distinctis, subangulis 50 -00 3 egredientibus, 
segmentis subsequalibus, arcubus laqueorum prominentibus, margini subparallelis ; nervis tertiariis inconspicuis. 
Ohs. — The leaf fossil from Atanekerdluk quoted certainly agrees in form with the leaves of Laurus Jieussii, 
Ett. (Bilin, II, PI. XXXI, figs. 5 and 11), but lias on either side only 7-8 secondary veins, which form similar 
segments, and whose arched loops are equi-distant from the margin, and almost parallel to it. In Laurus Reussii 
there are on each side 1 1 12 secondary veins, forming dissimilar segments ; the arched loops are at unequal 
distances from the margin, and for the most part not parallel to it ; and finally there are basal acute angled 
secondary veins, which are wanting in the leaf from Atanekerdluk. These fossils, therefore, cannot possibly 
belong to one another. On the other hand, the leaf fossil quoted shows in these very particulars such a great 
similarity to the leaf of Echitonium macrospermum , Ett., from the Fossil Flora of Leoben (see Contributions to 
that Flora, Sitzungsberichte, vol. lx, PI. IV, fig 3) that one might be tempted to regard the remains as identical. 
The leaf from Atanekerdluk is more narrow, however, and the arched loops are close to the margin, whilst in the 
leaf from Leoben they are remarkably distant. An Apocynaceous seed (fig. 4, loc. cit.) was found together with the 
leaf in the strata of Leoben, which has served as an important factor in the identification of the remains. I 
therefore believe that the leaf from Atanekerdluk should be included in the collective genus Echitonium, in 
which similar leaf fossils have been collocated. 
