63 
Remarks,—In comparison with living forms, if we consider the nervations of different 
orders separately we can compare this fossil with a large number of living forms, but the 
field of investigation is limited if we compare the relations of the different networks 
among themselves. The physiognomy of the fossil leaf depends especially on the angle 
of emergence of the secondary nerves, the mode of union (rapprochement) of the tertiary 
veins, and especially their behaviour in relation to the median nerve, which they meet 
at right angles, thus giving the whole network the appearance of concentric flattened 
aiches (un aspect concentrique surhaisse). This last character especially rules out the 
tropical Rubiaceae, such as the Gardenias of New Caledonia, and the Rhamnaceae of the 
same region, such as Alphitonia. Certain Cornaceae show a horizontal nervation, but 
difiei vei\ much on account of the relative importance of the secondary nerves. Many 
Euphoi biaceae have leaves of a somewhat similar aspect, but the. much more crowded 
and iareh bifurcated tertiary network, and the disposition of the ultimate mesh, renders 
the comparison untenable. Certain Styraceae ( Styrax ferrugineum Pohl., of Brazil) might 
be brought into line with our fossil but for the less bifurcated tertiary network, and its 
relations with the median and secondary nerves. 
Among the Dilleniaceae the genus Tetracera (T. Euryandra Vahl.) presents a tertiary 
network and an ultimate mesh very similar to that of the New Zealand fossil, if one 
considers only the portion included between two secondary nerves, but in its entirety 
the aspect is very different. 
Pterospermum lancecefolium Roxb., among those Sterculiaceee which have a regular - 
base, suggests itself at first glance, but the tertiary network is very different. While in 
the fossil it is reticulated, forming an irregularly polygonal mesh, the tertiary nerves are 
generally simple in Pterospermum, and, what is more, the ultimate mesh is elongated in 
a direction perpendicular to that of the fossil, being parallel to the secondary nerves. 
Finally, we meet among the Artocarpese closer grounds for comparison in Ficus, 
Olmedia, and Artocarpus. Among the members of the genus Ficus, a large number, 
which have a tertiary nervation parallel to the secondary nerves, may be eliminated, but 
we find other species which present a network whose appearance is analogous to that 
which one observes in the fossil, especially in certain species of Ficus from Timor, 
which, except for a tendency to incompleteness of the secondary nerves, present the other 
characters of the fossil. The same is the case with Ficus SaJcalavarum Bak. of Madagascar, 
in which the basal nerves are much more prominent. In Olmedia and Artocarpus 
(Artocarpus ngida B.C.) of the East Indian region, one does not. see so marked a 
tendency to form incomplete secondary nerves as in Ficus. Except as regards the 
dimensions and the alternation of the secondary nerves, which are features of quite 
minimal importance, the other characters agree well with those observed in the fossil. 
It is thus with this group that the affinities of the fossil appear to lie closest. 
As we cannot hope to meet with absolute identity between the modern genus and 
so ancient a fossil, we will place the latter in the fossil genus Artocarpidium. Ung. 
The authors who have adopted this genus have had especially in view the remains 
of the fructiferous receptacle; as for the foliar remains, they have been so little 
elucidated that they cannot be taken into consideration. For our part, the term 
Artocarpidium recalls especially the relations of comparative nervation which we find 
between the New Zealand fossil and the group of modern Artocarpeae. 
The comparison with fossil forms, including those already described in the numerous 
Cretaceous floras of both hemispheres, is rendered extremely difficult by the almost 
entire absence of nervation in the figures given bv the authors. None of the fossils 
described by Ettingshausen(l) from the Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks of New Zealand 
can be compared with the impression here described. The same author(2), in the 
1) Kttingshausen (1887 1 ). 
(2) Ettingshausen (1895), p. 22, pi. ii, fig. 11. 
