64 
study which he has made of the Cretaceous flora of Australia, quotes an Artocarpidium 
pseudo-cretaceum Ett., and compares it with A. cretaceum Ett. from the chalk of 
Niederschona(l). However, the figures given are quite rudimentary, and neither from 
them nor from the descriptions of this author can one establish any sort of com¬ 
parison. As to Ficus ipswichiana Ett.(2), one cannot from the fragment of nervation 
drawn arrive at any idea of what it may be. 
No equivalent to this fossil is to be found among the forms from the Cretaceous 
of Bohemia. On the other hand, we find a certain analogy with Credneria ZenJceri 
var. acuminata Rich.(3), especially as regards the tertiary nervation, but the arrange¬ 
ment of the secondary nerves and the form of the base are entirely different from 
that which we observe in the New Zealand fossil. 
We cannot point to any satisfactory comparison with the numerous examples of 
Ficus described by Hosius and von der Marck(4) from the Cretaceous of Westphalia. 
In America, Lesquereux(5) figures in the flora of the Dakota group a Ficus, F. distorta 
Lesq., which presents no similarity to our example. Nor dq we find any similarity 
with species from the Cretaceous of the Arctic regions, noticed by Heer in the Flora 
Fossilis Arctica, nor with those from Nebraska(6). 
Certain Artocarpidiums have been recorded in the Tertiary floras of Europe—at 
Sotzka by Unger, and at Bilin and Monte Promina by Ettingshausen. However, the 
tertiary and ultimate nervations, which are the bases of comparison with recent or 
fossil examples, are completely wanting in the figures of the fossils mentioned. 
It follows that the type of Waikato Heads deserves to be classed apart in the 
series of interesting fossil forms of the Lower Cretaceous period. Its Artocarpic 
nervation constitutes a very well-defined type in the series of primitive Dicotyledons, 
which, from the Lower Cretaceous period, emerge to our view with characters which 
are all but definitive, and which will come to characterize in due course the entire 
group m a general manner, without modifications of any importance. From this point 
of view this fossil, incomplete as it is, presents great interest, and I name it Artocar¬ 
pidium Arberi sp. nov. 
Genus PHYLLITES Sternberg, 1826. 
(Vers. Darstell. Flora Vorwelt, Heft vi, p. xlvi.) 
Phyllites sp. Plate XIVc. 
Description of the Specimen.- —Another very fragmentary leaf occurs on the same slab 
as the last specimens (Plate XIVc). Parts of three pairs of secondary nerves, which 
bifurcate at a short distance from their emergence from the midrib, are alone visible. 
The data for comparison are here entirely lacking, and it is best not to assign 
a species to this fossil, which is evidently a Dicotyledonous fragment. It would be 
possible, moreover, to compare it to a great number of fossils described in the 
Cretaceous and Tertiary floras, without adding anything to our knowledge. 
INCERTJE SEDIS. 
Genus CARPOLITHUS Sternberg, 1833. 
(Vers. Darstell. Flora Vonvelt, Heft v, vi, pi. xl.) 
Carpolithus McKayi sp. nov. Plate XI, fig. 6. 
Diagnosis.- —Seed small, oval, slightly pointed at one end, more or less rounded at 
the other, 11-5 mm. long and 9 mm. across at its widest point. Central “nucule” 
(1) Ettingshausen (1867), p. 251, pi. ii, fig. 4. 
(2) Ettingshausen (1895), p. 22, pi. ii, fig. 12a. 
(3) Richter (1905), p. 12, pi. ii, fig. 5. 
(4) Hosius and von der March (1880). 
(5) Lesquereux (1883), p. 48, pi. xiv, fig. 4. 
(6) Capellini and Heer (1867). 
