On an Australian Specimen of Clepsydropsis. 
BY 
B. SAHNI, M.A. (Cantab.), M.Sc. (Lond.). 
With Plate IV and two Figures in the Text. 
I. Introduction. 
HE specimen forming the subject of this paper is from the private 
X collection of Mr. A. B. Walkom, of the University of Brisbane. It 
was collected near Mt. Tangorin, New South Wales (long. 151 0 22' E., lat. 
32°36' S.), and, although not discovered in situ , is, according to the owner, 
probably of Carboniferous age. More definite information regarding the 
horizon is unfortunately lacking. 
A cursory examination of the sections showed that the fossil should be 
referred to the Zygopterideae, and that on account of the shape of the petiolar 
trace (as seen in transverse section) it would have to be placed near 
Clepsydropsis antiqua , Unger. This fact had an additional interest at the 
time, for I was then under the impression that this was the first specimen of 
a Zygopterid to be recorded from Australia — in fact from any other part of 
the world except Europe and one locality in Western Siberia. The work 
was therefore carried on with increased interest : the greater part of it was 
completed early in the year 1917, and a preliminary account was read before 
the Cambridge Philosophical Society on February 19, 1917. Only a few days 
before that date, however, I received from Professor W. H. Lang a letter 
for which I am much indebted to him. In that letter he informed me that 
Mrs. E. M. Osborn, of Adelaide, Australia, was also investigating a Zygo- 
pterid from Australia, and referred me to her preliminary account of it in the 
Annual Report of the last Manchester meeting of the British Association 
(1915), 1 of which I was unfortunately not aware. Mrs. Osborn’s fossil also 
comes from New South Wales, but from a locality ne§r Barraba, about T50 
miles north-west of Mt. Tangorin, and was discovered in situ in rocks 
probably of Upper Devonian age. From the short sketch just referred to 
it was obvious that the two plants belonged to the same genus, but it was 
impossible to say whether the Barraba fossil was specifically distinct from 
1 pp- 727-8. 
[Annals of Botany, Vol. XXXIII. No. CXXIX. January, 1919.] 
