39 
far as the present evidence of the earlier Mesozoic examples is concerned, it must be 
admitted that it rests entirely on a similarity of frond-habit (which is notoriously 
untrustworthy as a guide to affinity) and not on any precise knowledge of the fructi¬ 
fication. Further, there ,is little doubt that the genus Gleichenites, even if it is to 
include the Mesophytic types in question, is a thoroughly bad one, incapable of 
being defined compactly or concisely. If we look into the origin of the term we find 
that it was instituted for Palaeozoic plants now long ago transferred to other genera. 
The genus was founded in 1836 by Goeppert(l), who briefly diagnosed it as 
follows: “ Frons dichotoma pinnata. Fructificatio hucusque ignota.” He described 
five species, all of Palaeozoic age, one species being of Lower Carboniferous, three 
of Upper Carboniferous, and one of Permian age. Several of these plants had already 
been ascribed to other genera, and they have since been finally referred to Eremopteris, 
Sphenopteris, &c. 
In 1860 Eichwald(2) recorded one of Goeppert’s species, the well-known Eremopteris 
artemisicefolia (Sternb.), from Russia, and a new species, which is apparently a Palaeo¬ 
zoic species of Sphenopteris, from the same country. 
These are the chief attributions of Palaeozoic plants to the genus Gleichenites, 
and, as we have seen, none of them can stand. In more recent years other authors 
have applied this same name to Mesozoic plants of quite different affinity to those 
enumerated by Goeppert. 
One of the first of these was the Upper Gondwana plant of India described by 
01dham(3) in 1860 as Pecopteris (Gleichenites) linearis, and in 1862 by Oldham and 
Morris(4) as Pecopteris (Gleichenites) gleichenoides. Schimper(5) subsequently changed 
the specific name, and placed this plant in the living genus Gleichenia itself; but 
Feistmantel(6) more cautiously described it as Gleichenites (Gleichenia) Bindrabunensis 
(Schimper). This species I propose to term Microphyllopteris gleichenoides (Old. & 
Morr.). It has also been recorded by Etheridge(7) from Australia, and referred by him 
to yet another genus. 
In 1865 de Zigno(8) described a new plant with a dichotomously branched frond, 
from the Jurassic of Italy, under the name Gleichenites elegans. Schimper(9) in 
1869 also transferred this fossil to the genus Gleichenia. This plant I propose in 
future to term Microphyllopteris elegans (Zigno). As de Zigno pointed out, it is 
also possible that the very incomplete fragment of a frond from the Jurassic of 
Mamers, France, figured by Brongniart(lO) as Pecopteris Desnoyersii in 1836, may be 
related to the Italian fossil generically, but at present the material is too imperfect 
to allow of any definite conclusions on this point. 
The American Triassic Neuropteris linncecefolia of Bunbury(ll), from the Richmond 
coalfield of Virginia, of which additional specimens have been figured by Fontaine(12) 
under the name Acrostichides linncecefolius, is no doubt another species of Micro¬ 
phyllopteris. 
The obscure Gleichenites microphyllus of Schenk(13), from the Rhseto-Lias of Germany, 
may be a further representative of the genus, and another is perhaps Heer’s(14) Peco¬ 
pteris gracilis, from the Keuper of Neuewelt, near Basle, referred more recently by 
(1) Goeppert (1836), p. 181. 
(2) Eichwald (I860), vol. i, pp. 90, 91, pi. ii, 
figs. 5, 6. 
(3) Oldham (1860), p. 324. 
(4) Oldham and Morris (1862), p. 45, pi. xxv ; 
pi. xxvi figs. 1, 3. 
(5) Schimper (1869), vol. i, p. 670. 
(6) Feistmantel (1877 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ), pp. 41-93. 
(7) Etheridge (1888), p. 1307, pi. xxxviii, 
fig. 3. 
(8) de Zigno (1856), vol. i, p. 193, pi. x. 
(9) Schimper (1869), p. 670. 
(10) Brongniart (1828), p. 366, pi. cxxix, fig. 1. 
(11) Bunbury (1847), p. 281, pi. x. 
(12) Fontaine (1883), p. 25, pi. vi, fig. 3 ; 
pi. vii, figs. 1-4; pi. viii, fig. 1 ; 
pi. ix, fig. 1. 
(13) Schenk (1867), p. 86, pi. xxii, figs. 7, 8. 
(14) Heer (1865), p. 54, pi. ii, fig. 1. 
