37 
The simple leaves of Linguifolium also have a considerable resemblance to the 
pinnules of Danceopsis rajmahalensis Feist.(1), a compound frond from the Rajmahal 
Hills of India. There is no evidence, however, that the New Zealand specimens 
formed part of a pinnate frond. The following is a list of the plants previously 
described which I regard as species of Linguifolium: Linguifolium plumula (Sap.)(2), 
Linguifolium Steimnanni (Solms)(3), Linguifolium Feistmanteli (Ether.)(4). 
Professor Seward(5), in a criticism of my previous note on the Mount Potts 
flora, speaking of the fossils here termed Linguifolium, says, “ while admitting the 
almost complete absence of anastomoses, I believe that in one or two cases there 
are actual cross-connections, and that the fronds are very closely related to such 
species as Glossopteris indica and G. Browniana.” I am inclined, however, to regard 
such anastomoses as apparently occur as accidents of preservation, as I pointed out in 
a former note(6). Seward, however, appears to lay great stress on such cases of 
anastomoses of the veins as he can find, which he admits are rare, in the hope of 
proving this plant to be a Glossopteris. He says, “ the leaves on which the genus 
Linguifolium is founded are, I believe, if not generically identical with, at least very 
closely related to, Glossopteris .” In support of this view he cites some well-known cases 
among Permo-Carboniferous Glossopterids, in which the anastomoses are undoubtedly 
few or missing(7). The occurrence of such specimens is in no way remarkable. 
Whether the finer veinlets of the anastomoses are or are not preserved depends 
on the perfection of preservation exhibited by a particular specimen. No good case 
of an undoubted Glossopterid has yet been brought forward in which the absence or 
rarity of anastomoses cannot be well explained as the result of imperfect preservation 
of the nervation. Exactly the same thing is of the commonest occurrence among 
Tertiary dicotyledonous leaf-impressions. In such fossils the chief diagnostic characters 
are usually found in the delicate veins of the third or higher orders, yet as often as 
not these are not preserved, even when the coarser veins are well marked. Thus, 
if a specimen is found in Permo-Carboniferous beds in Gondwanaland in which the 
anastomoses are indistinct or absent, but which otherwise corresponds to Glossopteris, 
we may agree that it is probably only an imperfectly preserved member of that 
genus, which does not merit specific determination. Seward might apply this argument 
very fairly to Linguifolium did it occur in Permo-Carboniferous rocks, though if the 
limits of Glossopteris are to be so greatly enlarged it will have to include also 
Blechnoxylon among other types, which does not seem to me to be advisable. But 
as Seward appears to agree, Linguifolium occurs not in Permo-Carboniferous but in 
Mesozoic beds in New Zealand, and, as I have shown here, probably as late as the 
Jurassic period. Among Mesozoic plants there are several—such as the South American 
specimen referred to Lesleya by Solms, and the Australian fossil assigned to Phyllopteris 
by Etheridge, as I have pointed out above—which are very similar in habit to Lingui¬ 
folium, but I do not imagine that any one would dream of including these in 
Glossopteris. Certainly such a suggestion has not yet been made. So far as I can 
judge, the New Zealand plant agrees far better with these Mesozoic types than with 
Glossopteris, which is entirely unknown from the Jurassic. For the present, seeing 
that in the great majority of cases, as Seward admits, there are no signs of anas¬ 
tomoses among the nerves of Linguifolium, it is better to compare them with genera 
which reached their maximum during the same geological age than to lay undue 
(1) Feistmantel (1877), vol. i, pt. ii, p. 53, 
pi. xxxviii, figs. 4, 4a. 
(2) Saporta (1873), vol. i, p. 450, pi. lxiii, 
fig. 6. 
(3) Solms (1899), p. 596, pi. xiii, figs. 5-7. 
(4) Etheridge (1892), p. 3, pi. —, figs. 1, 2. 
(5) Seward (1914), p. 38. 
(6) Arber (1913 1 2 3 4 ), p. 345, footnote. 
(7) Zeiller (1902), p. 11, pi. iii, fig. 3; also 
Seward and Leslie (1908), p. 113, pi. ix, 
fig. 2 and text-figs. 2, 3; Seward 
(1910), p. 508, fig. 342. 
