36 
not to Glossopteris Brongn. In a later paper, however, in 1849, Brongniart(l) trans¬ 
ferred both these plants, the one Rhsetic and the other Jurassic, to a new genus 
Phyllopteris, distinct from Glossopteris and Sagenopteris, as he expressly states. Brongniart 
was at that time under the impression that the lateral nerves did not anastomose in 
these two species, a quite erroneous conclusion founded on the inaccurate representa¬ 
tions of the nervation of these plants given in some of the earlier illustrations by 
Phillips and others. It has been known, however, for many years past that a 
reticulate lateral nervation is a constant character of Sagenopteris, and, further, that 
the two species in question are still the most typical members of that genus. Thus 
Phyllopteris is a synonym of Sagenopteris, founded under a misapprehension. 
In 1873 Saporta(2) revived this term for quite a different plant, which is a true 
Linguifolium; hence the present confusion which I wish to avoid. Saporta has been 
followed by Etheridge(3) in regard to a South Australian type. 
Other members of Linguifolium have been already figured from various parts of the 
world, though not referred to Phyllopteris. The most important of these are the frag¬ 
mentary leaves from the Rhsetic rocks of La Ternera, Chile, referred by Solms(4) to 
the genus Lesleya, as L. Steinmanni Solms. It must be confessed that the above 
specimens, as also those from New Zealand here under consideration, very closely 
resemble the Palaeozoic plants referred to the genus Lesleya by Lesquereux(5), Grand’ 
Eury(6), and Zeiller(7). Apart from the difference in size, which is no doubt not of 
generic value, the larger fronds of Europe differ from the Rhsetic specimens chiefly in 
the lateral veins being finer, closer, more numerous, and more frequently branched. It 
will be a matter of opinion, no doubt, as to whether these differences, in * combination 
with dissimilarity in geological age, are sufficient to warrant generic separation ; but, 
despite the fact that it does not appear possible to distinguish the two types by more 
definite characters, I am so impressed by the difference in habit that I would refer 
the Rhsetic specimens to a distinct genus. For this I have recently proposed(8) the 
name Linguifolium gen. nov., by which is intended to be implied simply “ tongue¬ 
shaped leaf.” Linguifolium may also be compared with Copiapcea plicatella Solms(9), 
from the Rhsetic of Chile, which may perhaps be regarded as a species in which 
the nerves are more distant. 
Among Australian specimens, the Phyllopteris Feistmanteli of Etheridge(lO) is 
certainly a Linguifolium, closely similar to Linguifolium Lillieanum. The Neuropteris 
punctata of Shirley(ll) may be either a member of this genus or more probably 
a Danceopsis. The basal portions of the leaves are not preserved, and it is therefore 
impossible to say whether in this fossil the leaves were simple or compound. 
The fragmentary specimen figured by Seward(12), from the Jurassic rocks of 
Victoria, as Thinnfeldia sp., appears to be a Linguifolium, very close to if not identical 
with L. Lillieanum. The Pterophyllum dubia (sic) of Johnston(13) from Tasmania may 
be also of a similar nature. 
(1) Brongniart (1849), pp. 22, 103-105. 
(2) Saporta (1873), vol. i, p. 448, pi. lxiii, 
fig. 6. 
(3) Etheridge (1892), p. 3, pi. —, figs. 1, 2. 
(4) Solms (1899), p. 596, pi. xiii, figs. 5-7. 
(5) Lesquereux (1879), p. p 143, pi. xxv, 
figs. 1-3. 
(6) Grand’ Eury (1890), p. 305, pi. viii, fig. 5 ; 
Croq. F., p. 305. 
(7) Zeiller (1890), p. 166, pi. xiii, fig. 2; 
Renault and Zeiller (1888), p. 285, 
pi. xxiii, fig. 6. 
(8) Arber (1913 1 ), p. 346. 
(9) Soltns (1899), p. 594, pi. xiii, figs. 8-11. 
Compare also the nervation of the 
Permo-Carboniferous Blechnoxylon tal- 
bragarense Etheridge (1899), p. 135, 
pi. xxiv, figs. 1, 2, 3. 
(10) Etheridge (1892), p. 3, pi. —, figs. 1, 2. 
(11) Shirley (1898), p. 20, pi. xiv, fig. 2. 
(12) Seward (1904), p. 175, pi. xvii, fig. 29. 
(13) Johnston (1887), p. 176 ; (1888), pi. xxvii, 
fig. 6. Gf. also Johnston (1896), p. 58, 
pi. —, figs. 5, 6, 7, Strzeleckia ganga- 
mopteroides Johns., which, however, 
has apparently no midrib. 
