35 
egredi antes maculas inu'qun,liter hexagonales tvi- vel quadri-seriatas form antes, appendicibus 
anastomosantibus in maculas parvas partiti, sori per totam paginam folii inferiorem 
sparsa rotunda, vorosimiliter in ramulo libero insidentes, sporangia sox vel octo annulo 
multiarticulato instructa sporiD tetraodriem globosto glabrae.” 
Description of the Specimens. Two segments of a, frond of Dictyophyllum are seen on 
Plate VIN, fig. I, natural size. The nervation is only faintly preserved, but both in 
this respect and in the shape of the segments it recalls Dictyophyllum obtusilobum, to 
which 1 doubtfully rofor this specimen. Another fragment is illustrated by fig. 10 of the 
same plate, also .natural size. This shows the median portion of a, frond of a Dictyo¬ 
phyllum, but it is too fragmentary for specific determination, though it may also be 
compared with D. obtusilobum, as regards the nervation. 
Occurrence .— Mokoia, Gore (Lower Jurassic). 
Genus LI NG UI FOLI UM Arbor, 1913. 
( Proc. Roy. Soc., Her. B, vol. Ixxxvi, p. 346.) 
I his generic name is proposed for certain Mesozoic plants, which in habit some¬ 
what resemble T<miopteri,s on the one hand and Glossopleris on the other. They differ 
from the former genus in the lateral veins arising at an acute angle to the midrib, 
and also in the nerves being somewhat arched and. more frequently dichotomized. 
The shape ol the leal is also spathulate, and not ribbon-shaped. They differ from the 
latter genus in that the lateral .nerves do not anastomose. 
The following may bo regarded as a provisional diagnosis of the genus: Leaves 
simple, large, usually tongue-shaped, gradually contracted at the base, margins entire. 
Midrib strong ; lateral nerves arising at a very acute angle to the midrib, more or less 
arched, frequently dichotomizing, but not anastomosing. 
The question will naturally arise whether it would not be better to refer the 
leaves, here termed Irinyuifolium, to Brongniart’s genus Rhyllopleris, as has indeed been 
done in regard to at least one other example previously described. At first sight it 
would appear that the diagnosis of Rhyllopleris might, with some slight modification, 
be made to cover fossils similar to the New Zealand, specimens. This is undoubtedly 
the case, but if- is of the nature of a “ fluke.” Any one who is familiar with the 
reasons why the term Rhyllopleris Brongn. was instituted is aware that it is a true 
synonym of Hayenopteris , that it was founded under a misapprehension, and that there 
is good reason to believe that the type of leaf here referred to Linyuifolium was quite 
unknown to Brongniart. It seems to me extremely unwise to apply a term instituted 
for one genus to quite a different one, even if that term be a synonym. Further, as 
[ have said, it is merely chance that the diagnosis of Rhyllopleris happens also to fit 
lAnguifolium, a type of frond unknown until much later. Rhyllopleris has tended, to 
create confusion and to prolong misunderstanding in the past, and thus for the future 
it is best avoided. Though Saporta has applied this term to real members of the 
genus Liny uifolium, I am not inclined to follow his example, for T believe the best 
thing 1,o be done in such circumstances is to abandon entirely the old term, and to 
start afresh with a new name, and thus at least avoid confusion. 
The, history of Rhyllopleris may be stated briefly as follows: Lt 1830 Brongniart, 
in his flistoire ties VeySlaux fossiles(\), figured two plants, Glossopleris Rhillipsii Brongn. 
and G. Nilsoniana Brongn., which he believed to be new. The second, however, is 
identical with a, more complete specimen afterwards figured by l*resl(2) as tfayenopteris 
rhoifotia Presl, and both were shown later to belong to the genus Sagenopteris I’resl, and 
(I) Brongniart (IH28), vol. i, p. 225, pi. (il bis, 
fitf. 5 ; pi. 03, fign. 2, 3. 
3* Mem. Floras. 
(2) Freni in Sternberg (1820), Heft 7, p. 1C4 
pi. 35, fig. I, 1838. 
