Scientia Sinica

No. | SZE: CORRELATION & AGE OF YENCHANG FLORA 149

Taentopteris ensis (Oldh.) Zeiller Yuccites uralensis Prynada

From the foregoing lists, it appears evident that the Upper Triassic flora of two horizons of Kazakstan is likewise characterized by a dominant assemblage of Danaeopsis, Bernoullia and Glossophyllum (=Brick’s Yuccites) and also contains Cladophlebis szeiana, Cl. shensiensis (=Brick’s Todites roesserti), PProtoblechnum hughesi (=Brick’s Danaeopsis hughesi), Swedenborgia cryptomerioides and Sagenopteris, Thinnfeldia, Sphenozamites, Ixostrobus, Equisetites, etc. The two horizons of Kazakstan can therefore be undoubtedly correlated with the Yenchang Formation, N. Shensi. It should be pointed out, however, that some determinations of Dr. Brick can not be accepted as correct. From the examination of the published figures!''), the writer is convinced that her Todites roesserti Zeiller is undoubtedly identical with our Cladophlebis shensiensis. There are also considerable variations of the pinnules of the Kazakstan specimens. In regard to the pattern of the venation, the. species of Kazakstan agrees fairly well with Cl. shensiensis and with Todites roesserti Pres] described by Zeiller from the Tonking Coal Field. . The writer has already pointed out that Zeiller identified his Tonking specimens with Cl. roesserti Presl, but Presl’s type specimen of this species is an indeterminable fragment. Harris referred Zeiller’s specimens to the species Todites goeppertianus (Munster) Krasser. It seems that both the specimens of Tonking and Northern Shensi are not identical with Todites goeppertianus. The specimens described by Brick''*! as Yuccites uralensis Presl, etc. are all but indistinguishable from Glossophyllum? shensiense and her specimens of Danaeopsis hughesi'*" are all indeterminable fragments similar to those found from the Yenchang Formation. It is evident that the specimens of Kazakstan can also be determined under the name of ?Protoblechnum hughesi (Feistm.)Halle. The species described by Brick as Danaeopsis emarginata"®! is very difficult to distinguish from our Danaeopsis fecunda and it is possible that her D. marantacea' belongs to this species too. There are also many specimens of a typical Bernoullia in the Kazakstan flora. In regard to the size and shape of the pinnae and especially in regard to the pattern of venation, the specimens described by Brick under the name of Danaeopsis bipinnata and D. angustipinnata''**! agree well with our Bernoullia zeilleri and it is highly possible that these specimens of Kazakstan belong to this species. The determination is all the more certain, when we found a few fertile specimens of this genus presented also in the Kazakstan flora’®"!. The sterile specimens described as Bernoullia aktiubensis in the Kazakstan flora are, however, indeterminable and the same can be said for the specimens of Callipteridium and Lepidopteris. The determinations of all these forms are apparently doubtful. Finally, it should be pointed out that the species Cladophlebis aktiubensis"®) in Kazakstan is very closely allied to our Cl. ichiinensis.

There can, at any rate, be no doubt that the Upper Triassic Kazakstan