REPORT OF DHE DIRECTORY 1922 607 
teris; but the sporangia apparently were clustered more as 1s the 
case with Cephalopteris. An interesting fact here is that 
there is a great similarity between the sterile foliage referred by 
Nathorst to C. mirabilis and the sterile foliage of Eosper- 
matopteris. Nathorst?® compares Cephalopteris with 
a Belgian species of Upper Devonian age described by Crépin®’ as 
Rhacophyton condrusorum and by Gilkinet** as 
Sphenopteris condrusorum; and this, too, shows strik- 
ing similarity toour Eospermatopteris as to foliage. It is 
also worthy of note that, while the exact position of Cephalop- 
teris can not be definitely determined from lack of available data, 
it is thought probable that it was a seed-bearing Pteridospermophyte 
and not a true fern.”® 
There are only about a dozen small slabs containing specimens of 
the sporangia-bearing organs of Eospermatopteris; but we 
are exceedingly fortunate in having that many, and in having in this 
collection both young and mature specimens. 
From the way in which the sporangia-bearing organs are pre- 
served, it would seem that in the younger specimens, plate 11, figure 
6, this structure is more funnel-shaped, and that it broadens out and 
becomes more saucer-shaped at maturity, plate 11, figures 7, 8. It 
may be that sporangia are present in the immature specimens, but 
their preservation as impressions makes any detection of this condi- 
tion impossible. The older specimens are preserved also as impres- 
sions, but flattened out, so that the absence of the sporangia is appar- 
ent. On the underside, closely clustered around the place of attach- 
ment of the pedicel and extending out toward the margin, are numer- 
ous rounded depressions, some of which appear to show a small scar 
at the bottom. These have been interpreted to mark the place of 
attachment of the sporangia; and they cease some distance from the 
margin showing that the clustered sporangia were confined toward 
the center. In most of the specimens the marginal area is marked 
with numerous concentric lines or wrinkles; but they would seem to 
be due to shrinkage or in part to the flattening down of a saucer- 
shaped structure. When the specimens are so preserved that the 
impression of the upper surface is shown, lines or wrinkles are seen 
* peaehorst A. G., Handl. k. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akad., 1902, 36, no. 3, 
(Dy Oy 
™ Crepin, F., Bul. Acad. Roy. Belg., 2d ser., 1874, 38:356; Bul. Soc. Roy. 
Bot. Belg., 1875, 14:214. 
© Gilkinet, A.. Bul. Acad. Roy. Belg., 2d ser., 1875, 40, no. 8, 139; Mem. 
Soc. Geol. Belg., 1922, p. 5-10, pls. 1-4. 
*® Seward, A. C., Ref. cited, p. 537; Zeiller, R., Rev. Gén. Bot., 1908, 20:50; 
