PART £.] 
Feistmaniel: Fossil Floras in India. 
71 
right in considering it as a Zamiece (though not Zamia). His figure agrees pretty fairly 
in outline with the original, so that there is no doubt that we have before us that specimen 
from which the figure in those unpublished plates was taken and which McClelland copied 
again ; only the insertion of the leaflets and the veins are not quite correctly drawn. From 
these both, as also from the form of the leaf, I think that this specimen is rather a Ptero - 
phyllum. than a Zamia. 
I shall give here a short description, and as McClelland called it already Zamia Burd- 
wanensis, I shall keep the same specific name ; I give also a new figure of it. 
Pterophyllum Bubdwanense, Feistm., PI. I, fig. 1, la (McClell., sp.). 
1850. Zamia Burdwanensis , McClelland: 1. c. p. 53, PI. XIX, fig. 4. 
Fronde mediocri, rhaohide tenui (in specimine nostro !) ; pinnulis (foliolis) oblongs 
linearibus, cequalibus, subcoriaceis, tota basi insertis ; basi paulo dilatatis, contiguis, apice 
obtuse acuminatis; nervis simplicibus.filiformibus, distantibus, 7-8 numerantibus. 
The specimen is only a fragment of a frond, with four leaflets on one side and two 
on the other; the frond seems to have been only of a middle size, as far as one can judge 
from the specimen. The leaflets measure 62 mm. length and are 8 mm. broad. 
They are inserted by the whole base, and they seem to he slightly joined at their bases; 
the apex is obtusely acuminated. The rhachis of the frond in this specimen is very thin; 
it does not, however, follow that it was so throughout, as we see, for instance, the same 
relations in Pterophyllum Medlicottianum, 0. M., from the Rajmehal hills ; the specimen 
figured by M.M. Oldham and Morris* * * § has a thin rhachis, while I have figured later two 
specimens, with a pretty thick rhachis.f 
The veins are not numerous and rather distant; I could count seven to eight veins in 
one leaflet; they are very thin, though very well marked. 
As to the relations of our specimen, I can say that it is next to those forms from the 
Rajmehal hills which were named Pteroph. Carterianum, Oldh., and Pteroph. Falconer- 
ianum, Morr., both of which, however, I treat as only one species, with the former name. 
This species increases the number of the Cycadeacece from the Damuda Series. As I 
have mentioned in one of my last notes in the Records, I think it is very probable from the 
form of the leaf and especially from the relations of the veins that the Zeugophyllites 
from Australia, which by some authors is also referred to Schizoneura, is only a Cycadeacece, 
and belonging most probably to Podosamites, Br. 
This Pterophyllum is, however, not the only Cycadeacece from the Damudas. I men¬ 
tioned already several others which according to the opinions of most authors (beginning 
with Brongniart, 1838, and ending with Schimper, 1874) are to be placed to Cycadeacece. 
To these belongs in the first place— 
Noggerathia, Stbg. 
Noggerathia, Strnb., is in our Damuda Series pretty frequent, and a Noggerathia 
Hislopi was described by Sir Charles Bunbury 1861.J It is very well known that Brong¬ 
niart already, 1833§, was convinced that Noggerathia belongs to the Cycadeacece; later 
* Rajmahal Flora: Pal. Tndica, PI. XVII, fig. 1 . 
t Rajmahal Flora Contin., PI. XLIII, 2, XLIV, 1, 
X Q.uar. Jour. Geol. Society, 1861. 
§ Armalee des sciences naturelles, 1833. 
