166 
The fern fragments figured by Oldham and Morris from the Rajmahal Hills 
as Sphenopteris (?) Hislopi hear a close resemblance to several specimens from 
Victoria. The Australian and Indian plants may well be identical; the greater 
abundance of the Victorian material enables us to recognise certain features which 
are not shown in the Rajmahal specimens, but it is by no means certain that 
the differences are of sufficient importance to justify specific separation. I have, 
however, adopted the name applied by McCoy to specimens figured by Stirling, 
which are, in all probability, specifically identical with those described below. 
Specimens like that shown in Fig. 15 represent the tips of pinnae—portions of 
fronds not found in the Indian material; the ultimate segment in the Victorian 
examples have rather more acute apices than those figured by Oldham and 
Morris. The plant referred by Shirley* * * § to Sphenopteris superba bears a 
fairly close resemblance to specimens of S. ampla like that represented in 
Fig. 15. Some of the specimens figured by Fontaine from the Potomac beds 
of North America as species of Thinnfeldia' j* appear to be very similar to the 
Victorian fragments. 
It is difficult to decide as to the best course to adopt in regard to nomen¬ 
clature in the present instance ; to apply the term Sphenopteris Hislopi to the 
Victorian fern would, perhaps, be over rash, but while accepting McCoy’s name, 
I would emphasize the very close agreement between Sphenopteris ampla and 
the Indian fern S. Hislopi. 
Ettingshausen’s genus Thinnfeldia might be applied to the specimens 
represented in Figs. 10-16 ; but the characteristic forked pinnae of such a 
species as T. odontopteroides, Morr.,J from the Stormberg beds of South Africa 
are not represented in Sphenopteris ampla, the branching of which appears to 
have been that of a bipinnate or tripinnate fern frond. 
Fig. 10 (103, Allotment 39c, Jumbunna East).—A fragment 4 cm. in 
length exhibiting very clearly the Sphenopteris type of venation. The 
imperfect apical portion bears a close resemblance to the tips of the pinnae 
represented in Fig. 15. Compare Stirling’s PI. 3, Fig. 6.§ 
Fig. 11 (F, Allotment 65, Jumbunna).—An imperfect specimen showing 
portions of two pinnae with ovate segments, very similar to that figured by 
Stirling.|| 
Fig. 12 (D, Allotment 65, Jumbunna).—The lower pinnae agree closely with 
those of Fig. 15, while the terminal lobes may be compared with those of 
Fig. 10. 
Fig. 13 (79, Allotment 32a, Kongwak).—A very indistinct specimen, but 
probably a larger form of Sphenopteris ampla. 
Fig. 14 (76, allotment 62, Jumbunna).—A terminal fragment with obscure 
venation. 
Fig. 15 (9, allotment 65, Jumbunna).—Portions of two pinnae showing acute 
segments and indistinct veins. 
Fig. 16 (75, allotment 62, Jumbunna).—The apex of a frond ; the linear 
terminal portion is of the same form as the pinnae represented in Fig. 15. 
* Shirley (98), PI. IV. 
f Fontaine (89), Pis. 36, 37. 
J Feistmantel (89), PI. I. 
§ Stirling (99). 
|| Stirling (99), PI. 3, Fig. 17. 
