Notes on fossil plants collected by Dr. Ebenezer Emmons from the Older Mesozoic rocks of North Carolina, by Wm. M. Fontaine. 277

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Ferns and fern allies from the Trias of Pennsylvania. 432-440 Cycadaceous plants from the Trias of Pennsylvania.. 442-450nbsp;Ginkgoaceous and pinaeeous plants from the Trias of

Pinaeeous plants from the Trias of North Carolina.. 478-482 Pinaeeous plants, etc., and plants of uncertain affinity

Ferns from the Jurassic nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;of Oroville, California_____ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;498,500

Ferns and cycadaceous plants from the Jurassic of Oroville, I'alifornia................................. 502

Cycadaceous plants from the Jurassic of Oroville, California .......................................... 504-518

STATUS OF MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES.

FIKST PAPEK: THE OLDEK MESOZOIC.

It is proposed in this paper to give a succinct account of the progress thus far made in the direction of developing- the Mesozoic floras of the United States. The treatment will be primaril}^ in the ascending geological order, secondarily in such geographical order as seemsnbsp;most natural, and finally in the chronological order of discovery.nbsp;The aim will be to enumerate for the several formations, geographicalnbsp;areas, and special localities the fossil plants that have been found,nbsp;collected, and reported upon, and to give a somewhat complete bil^li-ograph3- of the work accomplished in strictly paleobotanical lines, withnbsp;special reference to correlation, but without any attempt to treat thenbsp;subject from the stratigraphical oi- general geological standpoint, sincenbsp;this latter task would be much too large, and has, moreover, to considerable extent, been done alreadjquot; bj' numerous writers. The stratigraphical results thus arrived at will be simplj^ accepted, and thenbsp;horizons will be arranged with reference to them. There will be nonbsp;attempt to republish what has alreadj' appeared, and the new matternbsp;will consist altogether of additional results here published for the hrstnbsp;time.

A special feature will be the enumeration of discoveries made and of materials collected and in hand, either now in process of elaboration or to be taken up as earlj^ as possible for future publication.

It is believed that such a paper will be useful not onl}^ as showing the work that has been done, the results of which are now scatterednbsp;through a great number of volumes of the most diverse character, andnbsp;are difficult to find, but also as indicating the direction and prospectsnbsp;of future work along the same lines.

The paper naturallj^ falls under three general heads, based on the general geological nomenclature of the Mesozoic�Triassic, Jurassic,nbsp;and Cretaceous�which, notwithstanding the difficulty in making the

American beds conform in all respects with the older elassilication, still proves a convenient and more or less satisfactorv basis of subdivision. These general heads may be made to designate the threenbsp;parts, I, II, and III, of the paper, and each of the parts may then benbsp;conveniently further subdivided into lesser heads dealing with thenbsp;smaller geological groups or formations, designated for the most partnbsp;by special names derived from localities where each is best exposed.

In view of the considerable magnitude which such a memoir is found to assume, and especially of the impossibility of having all the illustrations prepared in time to be embodied in the Twentieth Annualnbsp;Report of the Survey, it has been necessary to make a more generalnbsp;subdivision of it into two papers, one on the Older Mesozoic (Parts Inbsp;and II), and the other on the Younger Mesozoic, or Cretaceous, andnbsp;to confine the present paper to the former of these subdivisions, thenbsp;matter for which is ready, leaving the other subdivision to form thenbsp;subject of a second paper to be published in a subsequent report.

There are certain beds which are generalh^ admitted to belong to the great series called Triassic in all parts of the world, and the fossilnbsp;plants only help to confirm the conclusions on this point which havenbsp;been drawn from stratigraphical considerations and from other formsnbsp;of life. It so happens, however, that the paleobotanical record isnbsp;here ver}^ incomplete, and there is no adequate evidence that anynbsp;plant remains have thus far been found in any but the uppermostnbsp;portion of the Triassic series. It is true that Mr. Benjamin Smithnbsp;Lyman, of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, argues for a greatnbsp;thickness of the Triassic beds in Bucks and Montgomery counties,nbsp;Pennsylvania, � claiming that they extend into the Permian andnbsp;contain the remains of Calamites and Lepidodendron, but no onenbsp;else finds the same conditions, and Mr. Henry B. Kiimmel, after annbsp;exhaustive study of these beds in the adjacent State of New Jersey,nbsp;with Mr. Smith�s results before him, finds reasons for doubting hisnbsp;conclusions, and reduces the thickness from 27,000 to 12,000 or 15,000nbsp;feet by the discovery of faults.^

With regard to the fossil plants, Mr. Lyman admits that the supposed Calamites was never submitted to a competent specialist, and it is altogether probable that it represents the stem of a large Equisetum,nbsp;as, for example, E. Bogersii (Bunb.) Schimp. It must be remem-

^ Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., Vol. XXXIII, pp. 5-10; 192-215; Pennsylvania State Geological Survey Summary, Pinal Report, Vol III, Pt. II, pp. 2589-2638.

bered that Bunbury' in 1851, when he named that species, and all before that date, back to Brongniart in 1828, who first figvrred it,^nbsp;regarded it as a Calamites. For the existence of Lepidodendron therenbsp;would seem to be good authority; not, however, for its occurrence innbsp;the thick deposits of Pennsjdvania, but in the New Jersey beds, innbsp;quarries of Newark and Belleville, a photograph of a specimen fromnbsp;which was sent to Professor Lesquereux by Professor Cook, Statenbsp;geologist of New Jersey. In his report Professor Lesquereux says:

The photographs are sufficient, if not for specific determination at least for positive reference of the specimens to Lepidodendron. Even I should say that the specimens represent L. Veltheimianuvi Presl, as distinctly as a specific representationnbsp;can be made upon a decorticated trunk of Lepidodendron. L. Veltheimianum is anbsp;leading species of the Old Red Sandstone found here, as in Europe, from the Snb-carboniferous Measures down to the Devonian, while until now we do not hav'e anynbsp;remains of Lepidodendron of any kind from the Upper Coal Measures (Permo-Carboniferous) , or from higher up than the Pittsburg coal.

L. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�s recorded only once from the true Coal Measures; this by Eich-

wald, from the Carboniferous sandstone of Russia. But European authors, among others Goeppert, doubt the identity of the Russian species wdth L. Veltheimianum,nbsp;which is, moreover, extremely variable, and has been described already under aboutnbsp;thirty different names.*

B' hile the authority in this case is not to be questioned, there is certainly room for doubt as to whether so important a conclusion drawn from a photograph of a decorticated specimen can be regarded as final.

After reading Mr. Lyman�s articles I wrote to Professor Fontaine under date of May 4, 1894, as follows;

Have you seen Mr. Lyman�s articles in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (Vol. XXXIII, January, 1894, No. 144, pp. 5-10)? I wish you could see the specimen of so-called Lepidodendron from the Newark brownstone, to seenbsp;whether you agree with Lesquereux. It is just possible that there may be pointsnbsp;at which the change from the brown sandstone to the underlying Carboniferous isnbsp;not easily distinguished, and they may have got down into the Carboniferous. Thenbsp;whole matter ought surely to be looked into.

I had seen a notice of Lyman�s remarks on the Newark beds, but not the articles. Since you called my attention to them I have carefully read them. I think that henbsp;makes out a case strong enough to call for a careful revision of all that is known ofnbsp;the flora of these strata. It is possible, but I do not think probable, that the Devonian may be reached in some of the Newark strata. I think that the supposed Lepidodendron is the plant that I have figured in Monograph VI, pi. xlviii, fig. 5, whichnbsp;I supposed to be the stem of acyead (see p. 91 of monograph) like Williamson�s stemnbsp;of Zamia gigns. This may be really a coniferous stem and belong to the conifer thatnbsp;bore the cones depicted on pis. xivii and xlviii. These are possibly kin tonbsp;Abies and the ancestral forms of the Abietites of the Potomac. This is strikingly

�Geological Survey of Mew Jersey. Annual Report of the State Geologist for the year 1879, Trenton, 1879, pp. 26-27.

like Lepidodendron, but even if it be such the absence of all other Paleozoic plants and the fact that the accompanying flora is wholly Mesozoic would simply indicatenbsp;that Lepidodendron survives into the Mesozoic. It is noteworthy, with reference tonbsp;what Lesquereux says, that this Richmond coal-fleld plant is more like L. Veliheimi-animi than any other of that genus. I do not know what Mr. Lyman�s authority isnbsp;for the statement that the Newark beds are 9,000 feet below the �lilford strata, or fornbsp;the great thickness he gives for the Pennsylvania Trias, 27,000 feet. I have not seennbsp;any publication indicating that thickness. Do you know of such? Mr. Lymannbsp;questions my rejection of Lepidodendron from the Mesozoic flora. I do not see thatnbsp;that, if correct, helps his contention, which is that the fossils may be Lepidodendron,nbsp;and therefore the beds may be Paleozoic. If we grant that these plants are Lepidodendron, all that can be deduced is that this genus lived in the Mesozoic, for thenbsp;supposed Lepidodendron of North Carolina and Virginia is accompanied by annbsp;abundance of well-marked Mesozoic plants; otherwise we must conclude that thenbsp;North Carolina and Virginia beds are Paleozoic. Surely he would not maintain that. *

In all this the question has not been whether we have in these few doubtful remains representatives of the flora of the lowest Triassicnbsp;beds corresponding to the Variegated Sandstone or Vosgian and thenbsp;Muschelkalk, but whether they are Mesozoic or Paleozoic. Professornbsp;Fontaine seems to have sufficiently answered this question, and allnbsp;agree to the absence thus far of the characteristic Lower Triassicnbsp;forms, such as iEthophyllum, Voltzia, Albertia, and Yuccites.

With regard to the alleged Trias of Prince Edward Island,^ it presents a question singularly similar to the one just considered, since none of the fossil plants at least are claimed to represent the Lowernbsp;Trias, wdiile two of them are decidedly Paleozoic in their affinities.nbsp;I therefore fully indorse all that Dr. Knowlton has said'* with regardnbsp;to them. I had myself raised the question whether the Cycadeoideanbsp;ahequidends may not represent a cone of some coniferous tree. It isnbsp;vei�}� small for a cycadean trunk, though this alone would not negativenbsp;such a reference. Sir William Dawson�s fig. 29, which is aboutnbsp;natural size, does not bring out cycadean characters, and the supposednbsp;scars of leaves and buds represented enlarged in figs. 29a and 295 do notnbsp;help support his view. He does not explain why he places the smallnbsp;end down and describes it as �obovate� instead of reversing it andnbsp;treating it as originally conical, but if the side of the scars toward thenbsp;small end are, as represented, more pronounced than that toward thenbsp;large end, this wmuld seem to justify that position. A photograph,nbsp;slightly enlarged, ivhich Sir William was so good as to send me, andnbsp;which bears enlargement with a lens much better than the .engraving,nbsp;still fails to answer the question of orientation, but it must be admitted

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;At the time this letter was written the negotiations described below (pp. 274-276) relative to thenbsp;then recently discovered Emmons�s collection were going on, and it will be observed that Professornbsp;Fontaine, after examining the specimens themselves, refers the supposed Lepidodendron to Zamios-trobus virginiensis, virtually confirming his previous conclusion derived from an examination of thenbsp;figures alone.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Report on the Geological Structure and Mineral Resources of Prince Edward Island, by J. W.nbsp;Dawson, assisted by B. J. Harrington; Montreal, 1871; 51 pp., 3 plates. See pp. 13-22, 45, 46, pi. iii.

^*111 the Newark system, by I. C. Russell: Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No, 85, 1892, p. 29.

that some of the supposed buds when thus enlarged simulate very closely the reproductive organs of certain Cretaceous cycadean trunks.nbsp;This treatment further shows that the scars or scales point toward thenbsp;large end, which would be singular for a cone, whatever the conditions of compression to which it might have been subjected. It wouldnbsp;seem, therefore, that the -whole question must be left for the presentianbsp;abeyance, but there is at least no evidence of these beds representingnbsp;the early Trias. ^

It will therefore be necessary to treat the American Trias as a geological unit, and to confine the classilication to the several geographical areas in which its flora has been developed.

There is no fact more commonly remarked bj^ paleontologists than that of the defectiveness of the geological record in Mesozoic time,nbsp;especially as regards fossil plants. Of the three divisions or systemsnbsp;of the Mesozoic, the defectiveness of this record is most apparent innbsp;the earliest or lowest, viz, the Trias. In Europe the lower membernbsp;of the Trias, viz, the Buntersandstein, contains fossil plants at somenbsp;points, notabl}- in Alsatia, on the slopes of the Vosges, and in thenbsp;vicinitjr of Strasburg. The second or middle member, viz, thenbsp;Muschelkalk, is also represented by a few plant remains at Recoaro,nbsp;in Italy, and perhaps at a few other points. The last member, viz,nbsp;the Keuper, is very well represented at many different localities onnbsp;the Continent. The Triassic fossil plants are most numerous of all innbsp;the extreme upper member or transition beds, viz, the Rhetic, especially in the Kingdom of Bavaria, province of Franconia, near Baireuth,nbsp;and in South Sweden (Scania).

The attempt to correlate the Trias of America with any other of these three series of the European Trias has thus far been more ornbsp;less unsuccessful, but it is remarkable that all the fossil plants thatnbsp;have ever been discovered in American strata within the proper limitsnbsp;of the Trias not onlj^ appear to belong to nearly the same horizon, butnbsp;also have their nearest affinities with those found in the very uppermost of the four different members which have been enumerated.nbsp;It is quite immaterial whether we denominate this member the uppernbsp;Keuper or call it the Rhetic.

The principal plant-bearing deposits which have been assigned to the Trias in America occur in the Connecticut Valley, in the vicinitynbsp;of Richmond, Virginia, and in North Carolina. In the West there arenbsp;large trails of countiy which hai'e been assigned to the Trias and whichnbsp;probably belong to that s\\stem, and many eminent geologists, including Dr. J. S. Newberry, have been disposed to identify this Westernnbsp;formation with that of the eastern part of the countr3^ These depositsnbsp;are most extensive in New Mexico and Arizona, Imt are perhaps to benbsp;found in Indian Territory and adjacent parts of Texas. The}quot; also

extend into Utah, Nevada, and Colorado. The beds near Taylorsville, California, will receive separate treatment.

Of these several deposits the one that has attracted the largest share of attention is the so-called Richmond coal field in Virginia, which hasnbsp;been the subject of a valuable contribution by Prof. William M. Fontaine, published in 1883 as Monograph VI of the United States Geological Survey.

Next in importance is the region in the State of North Carolina which was early investigated by Dr. Ebenezer Emmons, who publishednbsp;the results primarily in his report on the Geology of North Carolina as State geologist, and finally embodied them in his Americannbsp;Geology, Part VI.

A few fossil plants were long ago described and figured bjquot; Dr. Edward Hitchcock in his report on the geology of Massachusetts, andnbsp;in several papers in the American Journal of Science. Later, Dr. J. S.nbsp;Newberry elaborated certain material in his hands at the School ofnbsp;Mines, Columbia College, New York, and published the same in connection with the fossil fishes of the Connecticut Valley in a monographnbsp;of the Geological Survey. � This work is of special value to us in thenbsp;consideration of the question of correlation of the various Triassicnbsp;beds, since Dr. Newberry took much interest in this question andnbsp;made careful comparisons with all the other plant remains as well asnbsp;the animal remains of the Trias. His conclusions, therefore, upon thisnbsp;question are of the highest importance and are quite freely expressed.

The material from the Western beds has consisted chieflj^ of fossil wood, of which vast quantities exist, strewn over the plains of Arizonanbsp;and New Mexico, and which has been repeatedly reported upon andnbsp;graphicalljr described b}^ many writers. But until recently very littlenbsp;else has been known from that region. The work upon which we mustnbsp;rel}^ for most of our information with regard to that region, aside fromnbsp;the fossil wood, is that known as the report of the Macomb Exploringnbsp;Expedition, in which Dr. J. S. Newberry, as naturalist of that expedition, describes and figures a considerable number of Triassic fossilnbsp;plants; but most of the plants dealt with in this report come fromnbsp;Ylexico and not from any part of the United States.

Better to understand the history of the work done on the fossil plants of the American Trias, we will now undertake a brief reviewnbsp;of the subject.

Beginning with the most northern of the Eastern deposits, viz, that of the Connecticut Valley, we find that the eaidiest mention madenbsp;of fossil plants was that hiquot; Dr. Edward Hitchcock, in the American

1 Fossil fishes and fossil plants of the Triassic rocks of New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley, by John S. Newberry: Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. XIV. Washington, 1888.

Journal of Science for 1833, in an extended article read before the American Geological Societi^ on September 11, 1823.^ Neither of thenbsp;two objects found is specifically determinable, the first being some sortnbsp;of cane or grass, the other a coniferous branch, possibh^ Palissya ornbsp;\ oltzia. The first was found one-half mile south of Newgate Prison,nbsp;and the second at Sunderland, in Massachusetts.

The first mention made of the petrified tree found in the Southbury area of the Connecticut Trias, about which so much has been said, wasnbsp;a paragraph devoted to it bj^ Dr. Hitchcock in his Miscellaneous Noticesnbsp;of Mineral Localities, with Geological Remarks, in 1828,^ describingnbsp;a fragment from it obtained by Dr. Smith of Southbury, brokennbsp;off by a man who had mistaken it for a recent stump and ruined hisnbsp;ax upon it.

In his first Geological Report of Massachusetts, published in 1833,'¹ and accompanied by an atlas of 18 plates, Dr. Hitchcock made passingnbsp;mention on pages 232-234r of vegetable remains in the Trias and fig-,nbsp;ured a few obscure objects on pi. xiii of the atlas. He supposed thatnbsp;he had found a species of Calamites agreeing closely with C. aremceusnbsp;of Brongniart, and refers to the mention biquot; De la Beche, in his Manual of Geology, of the discoveiy of Lycopodites Sillimanniat �Hadley.nbsp;Connecticut,� which he believes to have meant South Hadley, Massachusetts. Speaking of the coniferous plant figured in the Americannbsp;Journal, already referred to, he concludes that it is probably a Voltzianbsp;related to V. }gt;revifolia. The fucoid there found he was disposed tonbsp;regard as Fucoides Brongniartii; but, as we shall see later, he afterwards gave this plant another name. It was found in Deerfield andnbsp;Greenfield, and was referred to Dr. Morton for determination. Dr.nbsp;Hitchcock also here again calls attention to the fossil trunk of a treenbsp;discovered at Southbury, Connecticut.

The Report on the Geological Survey of Connecticut, by Charles Uphani Shepard,� 1837, refers to the occurrence of vegetable remainsnbsp;in the red sandstone at Middletown and in the cupriferous sandstone-slate at Enfield Palis, in Sufiield, and at Southington and Durham.

In his second Geological Report of Massachusetts�¹ Hitchcock devotes nine pages (pp. 450-458) to the subject of fossil plants in thenbsp;Trias or New Red Sandstone, as he calls it. Some of these are ofnbsp;doubtful vegetable nature; others that he figures are probably fucoids,nbsp;which can scarcely be determined from his description. The one men-

A sketch of the geology, mineralogy, and scenery of the regions contiguous to the River Connecticut, with a geological map and drawings of organic remains, and occasional botanical notices, Part I, by Edward Hitchcock: Am. Jour. Sci., 1st series, Vol. VI, 1823, pp. 1-86. For reference to fossilnbsp;plants see p. 80, pi. ix, figs. 4, �.

'quot;^Report on the Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology of Massachusetts, by Edward Hitcht^ock, Amherst, 1833.

tioned in the previon� report he now calls Fucoides Shepardi, and he distinguishes another as F. connecticu(e7iHis. These plant impressionsnbsp;are for the most part iigured in the text; but in addition he gives onenbsp;plate (which in the text he refers to as pi. 29, but which bears the number 28) on which occur four figures of various small objects, none ofnbsp;which are generically determinable, and only one can be with certaintynbsp;referred to the vegetable kingdom, viz, fig. 2. which probably represents a Palissya.

The same author read a paper before the Association of Geologists and Naturalists in 1842, in which he described a number of additionalnbsp;plant forms from this same region.'

In this paper Dr. Hitchcock gives an account of the fossil tree already mentioned, which was found at Southbury, the specimens of which henbsp;had sent to Professor Bailey at West Point, whose language he (jnotesnbsp;in this paper and whose figures he also gives on the plate. Professornbsp;Bailey had made three sections, one of which Avas longitudinal andnbsp;sufficiently radial to show conclushmly that the \\mod of this tree Avasnbsp;coniferous, and he so pronounced it. Dr. Hitchcock also here figuresnbsp;a specimen found in the dark-gray sandstone of Mount Holyoke,nbsp;Massachusetts, Avhich he says belongs to the genus Tfeniopteris, andnbsp;which he compares Avith T. vittata Brongn., as figured in Bronn�snbsp;LethaAa Geognostica. The figure (fig. 2) of this specimen is so very,nbsp;poor that no one would suspect it of being a fern, but inasmuch as henbsp;states that the specimen closely resembles Tainiopteris vittata we cannbsp;interpret the figure Avith some satisfaction, and there Avould scarcelynbsp;seem to be any doubt that this specimen actually represented a Ta?ni-opteris or Macrotisniopteris. This is interesting in view of the factnbsp;that Dr. NeAvberry, in his work already quoted,� speaking of Tmii-opteris magnifolia of Rogers, says that �this has not yet been foundnbsp;anvAvhere in the North, nor has any other similar fern been metnbsp;with there,�' showing that Dr. NeAvberry had probably overlooked thisnbsp;paper by Dr. Hitchcock. The other three figures represent a conifernbsp;allied to Yoltzia or perhaps belonging to Palissya, but too poorly preserved and too badly figured to be detei'uiinable.

In 1847 Dr. Benjamin Silliman gave an account� of two fossil trees, one of them with branches, found in place in the red sandstone in thenbsp;town of Bristol, Connecticut. A clear picture of the quarry Avith thenbsp;trees exposed is given on page 117, and his description is rathernbsp;full and satisfactory. As in the case of the Southbury specimens, anbsp;report was secured from Prof. J. Bailey on the internal structure,nbsp;with the same result, that it indicated the coniferous character ofnbsp;these remains.

� Description of several species of fossil plants from tlie New Red Sandstone Formation of Connecticut and Massachusetts, by Edward Hitchcock: Report of the first, second, and third meetings of .the Phil. Assoc, of Am. Geologists and Naturalists, 1840-1842, Boston, 1843, pp. 294-296, pi. xiii.

At the close of the paper Dr. Silliman mentions the fact that � large stems of reedlike plants are found in the beds which furnish the tish,nbsp;at Middletield, in the same State.�

In the same volume' Dr. Hitchcock noted the occurrence in bowlders of porphyritictrap at Amherst of �a vegetable stem from 1 to 3 inches in diameter, scarcel}quot; flattened.�

Several years later (1855), in an article contributed to the American Journal of Science,^ Dr. E. Hitchcock, jr., describes another fern, whichnbsp;he calls ClathropteriH rectiuseulus, found in the sandstone of Mountnbsp;Tom, in Easthampton, Massachu,setts. From the figures on page 24nbsp;Professor Fontaine, in his Older Mesozoic Flora,quot; identifies this withnbsp;i.'Jatlwo2)terhnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(^^bpp.) Brongn. There is some further

mention of this plant by the elder Hitchcock in 1861.* In his jiaper Dr. Hitchcock, jr., speaks of other specimens of what he supposed tonbsp;1)6 Clathropteris in the cabinet of Amherst College, taken from thenbsp;(piarrj' of Roswell Field, in Gill, Massachusetts. These specimens arenbsp;not figured, but from the description Dr. Hitchcock gives of themnbsp;Professor Fontaine concludes that they can hardly represent a Clathropteris, and are probably Dictyophyllum or Camptopteris.

In a paper by Dr. James Deane on the Sandstone Fossils of Connecticut River (Turners Falls, Massachusetts), published in the Journal of the American Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for November, 1856,quot; he figured one specimen (pi. xix, fig. a)nbsp;w�hich was thought b}quot; Professor Gray to be the �quot;leaf scars of somenbsp;plant like a tree fern,� and which Professor Dana could refer �tonbsp;nothing but a plant, the prominences being the traces of leaves, probably coniferous;� but he admitted it was �not like any known coniferous plant, ancient or modern� (see p. 177). Dr. Deane, how'ever,nbsp;did not share these opinions, and says of this specimen:

I think in the present state of science it is impossible to explain the origin of this elegant fossil. If the accumulated bodies that constitute the various lines of impressions be not due to the deciduous fronds of plants, they must be taken for the dermoid protuberances of some animal. There is not the slightest evidence of anbsp;compressed stem of a coniferous or other plant, which should certainly be the casenbsp;in so perfect a specimen; and, moreover, upon the superior or superincumbentnbsp;stratum the imprint is reversed; it is a cast, and this, it appears to me, is conclusivenbsp;evidence against a vegetable origin.

In his Ichnology of New Englandquot; Dr. Edward Hitchcock speaks, on page 6, of the fern {Clathropteris rectiuseulus) described by Dr.

quot;Description ot a new species of Clathropteris, discovered in the Connecticut Valley ,sandstone, by Dr. E. Hitchcock, jr.: Am. Jour. Sci., 2d series, Vol. XX, 1855, pp. 22-25.

quot;Ichnology of New England: A Report on the Sandstone of the Connecticut Valley, made to the Government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by Edward Hitchcock; Boston, 1858, 4�. Seenbsp;pp. 6, 8, pi. V, fig. 1; pi. vii, figs. 1 and 2.

Edward Hitchcock, jr., mentioned above, and gives a figure of the whole frond (pi. v, fig. 1), showing the radiating structure, and anothernbsp;(pi. vii, fig. 1) of a small segment more enlarged than that previouslynbsp;published.

In the same work (p. 8) he mentions a cone found in the quarries of Mr. Roswell Field at Turners Falls, which he thought similar to somenbsp;described in Europe from the Wealden. A sketch of this cone and ofnbsp;some coniferous twigs from the same locality, made bi' Mr. F. A.nbsp;Lydston, is introduced on pi. vii (fig. 2). Professor Fontaine, in anbsp;letter dated February 7, 1891, expresses the opinion that the twigsnbsp;here figured belong to Cheirolepis Muensteri, and that the cone maynbsp;have been that of a species of Palissya of the type of P. aptera Schenk.

From the date of the Ichnology of New England there seem to have been nearly thirty jmars during which no additional paleobo-tanical discoveries were made in the Connecticut Valley. In 1885 Mr.nbsp;H. H. Hendrick, a member of the Meriden Scientific Association, foundnbsp;in the Durham shales the fruit of a cycadean plant, a brief notice ofnbsp;which was published hiquot; the Rev. J. H. Chapin, of Meriden, presidentnbsp;of the association, in the proceedings for that year.^ The specimennbsp;was sent to Dr. J. S. Newberiy, who described and figured it in hisnbsp;Fossil Fishes and Fossil Plants (p. 92, pi. xxiv, fig. 4) under the namenbsp;of Cycadinocarpus Chcqnni. Mr. Chapin recorded this fact in a laternbsp;volume� of the same series in which the original announcement wasnbsp;made.

On March 28, 1887, Dr. Newberry presented to the New York Academjr of Sciences a very brief account of the results at which henbsp;had arrived in his study of the paleontology of the Triassic beds. Annbsp;abstract of this paper appeared the same year.� It contains a list ofnbsp;the plants that had been obtained from both the New Jersey and thenbsp;New England beds, all of which were fully treated in the work onnbsp;which he was then engaged.

The above enumeration brings the record of paleobotanical discovery in the Trias of the Connecticut Valley and New England areas downnbsp;to the date of Dr. Newberry�s Monograph of the Fossil Fishes andnbsp;Fossil Plants, to which reference has already been made (supra, p. 222).nbsp;In this he gives a sketch of the Triassic, and includes 17 species of fossilnbsp;plants. They were collected at Sunderland, Massachusetts, at Durham and Middletown, Connecticut, and at Newark and Milford, Newnbsp;Jersey, and are treated in a thorough and sj^stematic way, being illustrated in six plates with very excellent figures. Through this worknbsp;we are therefore at length placed in possession of a considerable body

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Proceedings and Transactions of the Scientific Association, Meriden, Connecticut, 1885-86, VoLnbsp;II, Meriden, 1887, p. 29.

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The fauna and flora of the Trias of New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley: Trans. N. Y. Acad.nbsp;Sci.. Vol. VI, 1886-87, pp. 124-128.

of facts relating to the fossil flora of the northern extension of the American Trias.

IVIv own investigations in this area began in the jmar 1890. During the month of August of that year Professor Fontaine andnbsp;myself visited the beds in the vicinity of New Haven and most of thenbsp;localities above mentioned in Connecticut and Massachusetts, especiallynbsp;those in the Connecticut Valley as far as Turners Falls and Gill, Massachusetts. Our object was, first, to see the collections at Yale University, at the Wesleyan University in Aliddletown, Connecticut, andnbsp;at Amherst and Turners Falls, Massachusetts, and to examine the oldernbsp;material that had been collected as above stated and all the fossil plantsnbsp;from the Trias deposited in these collections; secondly, to examine,nbsp;so far as possible, the beds themselves from which fossil plants havenbsp;been taken, and to note their mode of occurrence in the rocks.

Of recent collectors in this section by far the most successful has been Mr. S. Ward Loper, of Middletown. Mr. Loper was in the fieldnbsp;at the time of our visit, and we met him at Tariffville, Connecticut, atnbsp;which place he had discovered a plant-bearing localit5^ There beingnbsp;no true coal mines in the Connecticut Valley Trias, the mode of occurrence of the fossil plants is, of course, somewhat different from that innbsp;Virginia. It is equall}^ true here, as in Virginia, that fossil plants arenbsp;not found in the red sandstone, but are confined to the dark shales,nbsp;and those in the Connecticut Valley occur for the most part in closenbsp;connection with the trap ridges of that region. They are usuallynbsp;found at the margin of the shales near their contact with the trap.nbsp;The locality at Tariffville was in close contact with one of the secondarynbsp;trap ridges located on the eastern side of the main ridge, which,nbsp;in the general trend of these ridges, places it higher in the Trias,nbsp;geologicalljquot; speaking, or, as Professor Davis expresses it, �posterior.�nbsp;From what Mr. Loper told us, and from numerous observations uponnbsp;localities from which fossil plants have been previously reported, itnbsp;would seem that they usually occur in this position. A fairty goodnbsp;specimen of OtenopliyUum Braunianurn angustum was found duringnbsp;our visit to this locality, and Mr. Loper had already sent considerablenbsp;material of this character to Professor Davis, which subsequentlynbsp;found its waj^ into the general collection at Washington.

Besides examining the Portland quarries and those of Turners Falls and Gill, Massachusetts, where no vegetable remains other than thosenbsp;presently to be named occur, we visited several places in Connecticutnbsp;where Mr. Loper had obtained fossil plants, especially at Westfieldnbsp;and Highlands. In the Portland quarries there occur large logs clearlynbsp;representing Triassic trees embedded in the red sandstone and nownbsp;thoroughly silicitied; but besides these and the fine specimens ofnbsp;Dendrophycus which occur there, nothing of a vegetable naturenbsp;seems to have been found. At Turners Falls careful investigation was

made in the red shales bearing the tracks so celebrated in that locality, and under the guidance of Mr. T. M. Stoughton we visited all the important places from which specimens of interest had been taken. We sawnbsp;in these beds nothing that could be called vegetable, and it seems verjquot;nbsp;doubtful whether any plants either grew or were ever transported bynbsp;any agency' into the riparian claims in which the Erontotheria and othernbsp;saurians left their footprints in such profusion.

Special attention was paid on this excursion to the form called Den-dropli.ycus triassious Newb. The original of one of the specimens figured by Dr. Newlierry^ was seen at the museum of Tale Universitj�, the other�s was examined at the museum of the AVesleyan ITniversitj�.nbsp;Two other good specimens were afterwards secured at the Portlandnbsp;quarries by Mr. John H. Sage, of Portland, and generously donatednbsp;by him to the National Museum. The finest specimens, however, arenbsp;those at the ATesleyan University, also from the Portland quariAquot;.nbsp;Through the courtesy of Prof. W. N. llice, of that institution, permission was obtained to have these specimens photograyjhed, and Mr.nbsp;De Lancey Mquot;. Gill, then chief of the division of illustrations of thenbsp;United States Geological Surve}^ kindlj- undertook to visit Middle-town in November and attend to the photographing of these specimens. PI. XXXV, Fig. 1, represents one of these views. Althoughnbsp;this differs considerably from the specimens figured by Dr. Newbeny,nbsp;coming as they do from the same quarry, it is to be supposed that theynbsp;represent one species, and it may be assumed that the specimens figured by Dr. Newbeny show the lower portion of the frond and didnbsp;not contain those higher and finer lines so beautifulU shown in thenbsp;specimen at the Wesleyan Universit3L These, therefore, ivill also benbsp;treated as belonging to I), triafssiem.

I majquot; add that at Amherst several specimens of Dendrophycus from the Portland quart�}quot;, and, perhaps, from other points, were seen bynbsp;us. Thejquot; were labeled, apparently in the handwriting of Dr. Edwardnbsp;Hitchcock, �Aroid plants.� This is of special interest as showingnbsp;that Dr. Hitchcock supposed them to be of vegetable origin.

At the Washington meeting of the Geological Society of America in December, 1890, Prof. W. M. Davis and Mr. S. Ward Loper read anbsp;joint paper giving the results of their work in the Connecticut Vallei�.nbsp;The first part of this paper, by Professor Davis, is devoted to thenbsp;discussion of his theory of the formation of the �trap� and the generalnbsp;stratigraphy of the Triassic formation in the Connecticut Valle}�. Thenbsp;second part, by Mr. Loper, treats of the fossils. It gives an enumeration of the fossil fishes and fossil plants found by him and their strati-graphical position, showing those that are confined to the anterior and

3Two belts of fossiliferous black shale in the Triassic formation of Connecticut, by W. M. Davis and S. Ward Loper; Bull. Geol. Soc. America, Vol. II, Rochester, 1891, pp. 415-480.

to the posterior shales, and those that are common to both. This enumeration includes 13 plant forms, 11 of gt;vhich are specificallynbsp;named. Six of these forms are confined to the anterior and 2 tonbsp;the posterior shales, while the remaining 5 are common to bothnbsp;siUiations.

B}' this name may be designated the continuous belt of Triassic deposits that begins with the palisades of the Hudson and ends with thenbsp;Seneca quarries on the Maryland side of the Potomac. Its position isnbsp;too well known to require description. The several States may benbsp;treated in their order. No fossil plants have been reported from an3rnbsp;local itv in the Trias of New York.

Prof. Henry D. Rogers, in his description of the Geology of the State of New Jersey, published in 1810, devotes a chapter (Chapternbsp;HI, p. 114) to �the Middle Secondary Rocks,� which is the designation preferred by him for this series, and of these rocks he say^s (pp.nbsp;115-116):

The organic remains hitherto discovered are extremely few, and the evidence they afford is not sufficient to establish within near limits the era to which thesenbsp;strata should be referred. They consist merely of a few rather imperfect relics of onenbsp;or two species of fishes, some indistinct impressions of Fucoides, or other aquatic vegetation, and occasional thin bands of ligniform coal, in which the fibrous structure,nbsp;apparently that of the wood, is traceable.

On Majquot; 6,1869, Mr. T. A. Conrad presented a paper to the Con-chological Section of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences^ in which he de,scribed two species of fossil mollusks from South River,nbsp;New Jer-^^ey, found in ash-colored clay near Washington, Middlesexnbsp;Count}�, which he says � contains abundant stems and leaves of Cyclop-He further remarks that, although Rogers had referred thisnbsp;clay to the Cretaceous, he (Conrad) had � ascertained it to be Triassic.�

No one, to my knowledge, has since seen these � Cyclopteris� leaves. B hitfield^ refers to this and remarks;

It will be seen by reference to Professor Lesquereux�s list published in the �Report on Clays� (Geol. Rept. New Jersey, 1878, p. 28, 29) that Professor L. does not includenbsp;this genus among those examined and reported upon. We may, therefore, considernbsp;tliat Mr. Conrad may have been mistaken.

As the list in the Report on Clays contains only species found in the Plastic Clays, which are Cretaceous, this seems curious reasoning.nbsp;There are clay pits near Washington from which I have myself collected beautiful impressions of fo.ssil plants belonging to the flora of

the Amboy Clays, but they were chieflj^ dicot30edonous leaves, and this claj^ does not seem to be the source of the specimens mentioned bynbsp;Conrad. The Triassic runs under the Cretaceous a short distancenbsp;west of Washington and Middletown, and it is quite possible that thenbsp;claj^s in question ma^' be Triassic.

Mr. I. C. Russell, in 1878, found � a considerable abundance of obscure vegetable remains� at an abandoned copper mine on thenbsp;western slope of the First Newark Mountain, near Plainfield.�

The discovery of fossil plants in the Newark and Belleville quarries, as recorded in the Report of the State Geologist for 1879, has alreadynbsp;been referred to (supra, p. 219). Besides the specimen of a supposednbsp;Lepidodendron, of which a photograph was sent to Professor Lesque-reux, it is added that�

Another fragment has since been obtained from the same quarries by Dr. Skinner, of Belleville, and is now in our possession. It is 7 inches long, 5J inches wide, andnbsp;IJ inches thick, and is as plainly marked as the first. Other and smaller specimensnbsp;somewhat like the above have also been found in the quarries in Newark. If thesenbsp;fossils are sufficient to determine the geological age of these beds, they put it in thenbsp;Upper Carboniferous, at least, which is lower than has heen heretofore claimed for it.nbsp;A larger and more complete collection of such fossils must be made if possible.

Vegetable impressions are found in- large numbers at the quarries of Mr. Smith Clark, of Milford, but most of them are fragmentary and indistinct. Those whichnbsp;can be seen plainly enough for identification resemble the Equisetum and somenbsp;coniferous plants. They are evidently much newer than the fossils at Newark andnbsp;Belleville.^

Reference majquot; be made to a paper by Mr. Henry Carvill Lewis, published in the Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciencesnbsp;for November 24, 1879, On a New Fucoidal Plant from the Trias.nbsp;This plant was found at Milford and is figured in this paper. Thenbsp;generic determination was made by Professor Lesquereux, who considered it a new species of Palseophycus, and Mr. Lewis called itnbsp;P. limaciformis.

In the Report of the State Geologist of New Jersey for 1885, page 95, it is stated that Prof. T. C. Porter had obtained specimens of a conifernbsp;and an Equisetum in some Triassic sandstone quarries in Hunterdonnbsp;County, and also that the Glatliropteris rectiusculus Hitchcock hadnbsp;been found at a quarry near Pluckemin, in Somerset County.

Plant i-emains were also seen by Mr. F. Braun in a layer from 3 to 4 inches in thickness near the base of a bed of slate under the trapnbsp;rock along the western bank of the Hudson River at AVeehawken,nbsp;Guttenburg, and neighboring localities in New Jersey, as noted bynbsp;Mr. Gratacap in 1886.'�

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;On the occurrence of a solid hydrocarbon in the eruptive rocks of New Jersey, by I. C. Russell:nbsp;Am. Jour. Sci., 3d series, Vol. XVI, August, 1878, pp. 112-114.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Geological Survey of New Jersey, Annual Report of the State Geologist for the year 1879,nbsp;Trenton, 1879, p. 27.

^Fish remains and tracks in the Triassic rocks at Weehawkeu, New Jersey, by L. P. Gratacap. Am. Naturalist, Vol. XX, March, 1886, pp. 243-246

The Annual Report of the State Geologist of New Jerse}' for the year 1888 is largely devoted to the Triassic or red sandstone rocks,nbsp;and mentions the occurrence of vegetable remains at a number ofnbsp;points, especially at Belleville, Little Falls, Pleasant Dale, Martinsville, Pluckemin, Wilburtha, and Milford.

The above embraces the greater part of the record of paleobotan-ieal discovery in the Trias of New Jersej^ beyond what is noted in Dr. Newberry�s monograph.

In Pennsylvania there are several localities at which vegetable remains have been noted.

In 1856 Mr. Isaac Led gave an account � of some observations of his made the previous year in this viciniti^ where he found in darknbsp;shales, and associated with Posidonia, saurian teeth and footprints,nbsp;�impressions of plants, some of which belong to the Conifera [sic].�nbsp;He continues:

One of the cones was nearly 6 inches long and a full inch wide. These were accompanied by other plants of very obscure character, covering large portions ofnbsp;the surface of some of the layers.

Mr. Lea also mentioned that he had observed the same red, black, and gray shales at Gwynedd, on the North Pennsylvania Railroad, where he found the same Posidonianbsp;and some of the same obscure plants, impressions of which covered the surfaces ofnbsp;many of the rocks. A single specimen was obtained of a plant with long leavesnbsp;somewhat resembling iVorj/j/rral/ua cuneifotia Brongniart, which is from the Permian.^

More or less successful attempts must have been made to determine these plants collected by Lea, as Mr. Wheatley, in a paper read beforenbsp;the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences on February 20,1861,nbsp;identified a number of them with forms described bj^ Rogers andnbsp;Emmons from Virginia and North Carolina.

In his Older Mesozoic Flora, p. 116, Professor Fontaine sai�s that, according to Professor Lesquereux, CtenophyUum rohustiLin (Emm.)nbsp;Font. {Iheroj^hyllum robiistum Emm.) occurs at Phoenixville, Penns3d-vania, but he does not state where Professor Lesquereux has madenbsp;this statement, and I have been unable to find any reference to it fromnbsp;that locality.

Mr. Persifor Frazer, in his Geology of Chester Count}^^ saj�s that �plants are numerous at one or two horizons in the Mesozoic formation; referable to Equisetes (horsetails); Zamites therefore Triassic;nbsp;with lignitic fragments of conifers;� but he does not state the exactnbsp;locality and only leaves it to be inferred that this refers to Pennsjdva-nia, as he has been describing fossils of other kinds from Phcenixville.

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Remarks on the Mezozoic red sandstone of the Atlantic slope, and notice of the disccvery of anbsp;bone bed therein, at Phcenixville^ Pennsylvania, by Charles M. Wheatley, M. A.: Am. Jonr. Sci., 2dnbsp;series, Vol. XXXII, July, 1861, pp. 41-48. (See p. 43.)

4 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, 1883, C-�, igt;. 213.

In the Report of the State Geologist of New Jersey for 1885, page 96, the following� paragraph occurs:

The recent discovery of a stratum full of impressions of the plant Schizoneura (Calamiies) planUmtata (Eontaine), in the red shales near Doylestovvn, Pennsylvania,nbsp;by Mr. E. C. Pond, and of bivalve mollusks in those near Phceuixville, Pennsylvania,nbsp;where also a deposit containing cycads is reported, taken with the finds above noted,nbsp;suggests that the flora and fauna of the Triassic may be richer than hitherto supposed,nbsp;and encourages further search.

In the Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Pennsylvania for 188T Mr. A. Wanner^ describes supposed vegetable remains fromnbsp;the red sandstones of York County, in the vicinity of Goldsboro,nbsp;and figures three .specimens on pi. xiii. He regards them as representing algte of a very ancient Gpe, and proposes for this form thenbsp;name Hamulus rugosus. As we shall presents see, Mr. Wanner followed up his investigations with great success.

i\Ir. Renjamin Smith Ltmian, in the several papers alrcad}� cited (supra, p. 218), does not seem to have made any fresh contributionsnbsp;to the Triassic flora of Pennsylvania, and is content to enumerate thenbsp;plants that had already been reported, and to use some of them asnbsp;proofs of the Paleozoic age of certain beds previously regarded asnbsp;Triassic.

IMr. Frederick Ehrenfeld, of Philadelphia, a .student attheUniversity of Pennsylvania, presented to the faculty�, in 1898, a thesis^ which wasnbsp;the result of a somewhat careful .study of the Triassic beds in thenbsp;vicinity� of York, and virtually� the .same as those in which Mr. Wannernbsp;had been working, as it seems independently� and without knowledgenbsp;of the work of Mr. Ehrenfeld.

In this paper (pp. 10-15) Mr. Ehrenfeld enumerates half a dozen fossil plants that he had found in the Trias of that section, and hadnbsp;himself identified. They� are: Macrotmniopteris magnifolia (Rogers)nbsp;Schimp., Cheirolejjls Muensteri (Schenk) Schimp., Baiera Muenster-iaua (Presl) Heer, L(gt;2:gt;eria simplexlsewh., Mertensideshullatus (Bunb.) /nbsp;Font., and Equisetum Itogersii (Bunb.) Schimp.

As above remarked, Mr. Wanner continued his researches, and reached the results which are here publi.shed for the first time. Beforenbsp;completing his work he made two visits, in April and May�, 1899, tonbsp;Washington, bringing with him a part of his material, and carefully�nbsp;comparing it with the ty�pe specimens at the National Museum. Henbsp;finally� concluded to turn over his manuscript and drawings to thenbsp;Director of the United States Geological Survey� for publication, andnbsp;they were referred to me to edit and see through the press. Afternbsp;corre.spondence with Mr. 'Wanner it was decided to send them, as also

iTlie discovery of fossil tracks, algae, etc , in the Triassic of York County. Pennsylvania, by Atreus Wanner : Ann. Rept. Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania for 1887, Harrisburg, 1889, pp. 21-35.

-A Study of the Igneous Rocks at York Haven and Stony Brook. Pennsylvania, and their Accompanying Formations, by Frederick Ehrenfeld: Philadelphia, 1898; pp. 1-24, 1 plate.

WARD.] TRIASSIC FLORA OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

his entire collection of fossil plants, to Professor Fontaine for thoroug-h revision, and for a report npon them, including such notes and stigges-tions as he should deem of interest. This was done, and the work wasnbsp;completed about the middle of June. The collection proved of specialnbsp;interest, coming as it does from this wholp' new region of the Trias,nbsp;and, as might have been expected, it contained a mmiber of new speciesnbsp;and hitherto unknown plants, besides several not heretofore found innbsp;American deposits.

In editing the manuscripts of the two authors I have aimed to give the fullest possible expression to the views of both. Professor Fontaine�s long experience and extensive researches in this group rendernbsp;him the recognized authorit}^, and Mr. M'anner fulh^ acknowledges this.nbsp;His determinations are therefore accepted as final l)}^ all concerned,nbsp;and Avill be embodied in the following systematic treatment of thenbsp;plants. Mr. AVanner�s notes, however, as the collector and originalnbsp;investigator of the material, are of the utmost value and are alsonbsp;embbdied as nearly in his own language as accords with Professornbsp;Fontaine�s determinations. His figures are used as linished up l)ynbsp;himself, but to them Professor Fontaine has added a number, and innbsp;a few Cases has redrawn the same specimens to emphasize his ownnbsp;interpretation of their characters. The joint result may be put intonbsp;the following' form:

TRIASSIC FLORA OF YORK (�OUXTY, PF.NNSYLVANIA. By Atrefs Wanxer and William j\[. Fontaine.

For a number of years the writer, as opportunity permitted, has been exploring the Trias of York County. Encouraged by discoveries made elsewhere, and impelled by an inherent love of geologicalnbsp;study and investigation, he has collected enough material to warrantnbsp;its presentation. It is a report of progress.

1 Since the preparation of this report, but prior to its publication, and at the time of its presentation to Hon. Charles D. Walcott, I received a thesis on A Study of the Igneous Rocks of York Haven andnbsp;Stony Brook, Pennsylvania, and their accompanying formations, by Frederick Ehrenfeld.

On pages 10 and 11 the author names the following fossils whieli he found near York Haven:

Mr. Ehrenfeld had no knowledge of the fact that I had previously found fossils at the York Haven locality and had in preparation the report now submitted, for which reason to him also must benbsp;given the credit of having discovered fossil plants at that locality, and the further credit of having first published his report.

Mr. Ehrenfeld�s thesis was received by me on April 10, 1S99, and my report was presented to Hon. Charles D. Walcott on April 15, 1899.

As I understand the facts, the work of each^ lias been unknown to and independent of that of the other.

any fossils from the Trias in this region, with a single exception. That exception relates to Lecrone�s copper mine. About twentynbsp;years ago fossil teeth and bones were found at the bottom of a shaftnbsp;sunk for the purpose of developing a supposed vein of copper. Thesenbsp;were sent to the late Prof. E. D. Cope, of Philadelphia.

The drawings were all carefully made by the writer and are intended to be exact illustrations of the specimens. No details havenbsp;been supplied, though the possession of a number of other specimensnbsp;in different instances clearly furnished the material from which to fillnbsp;out missing parts.

In the description of fossil plants the publications of Williaih M. Fontaine have been referred to almost exclusively. Such has been thenbsp;case not simply because the York County fossil plants are almostnbsp;wholly included in Fontaine�s Mesozoic Flora, but because of the completeness and clearness of his descrif)tions and illustrations.

The writer is indebted to Mr. J. Heckert for valuable assistance. In this connection it is but just to acknowledge the potent influencenbsp;exerted by the indefatigable energy and comprehensive and exhaustive methods of research of the Director of the United States Geologicalnbsp;Survey, Hon. Charles D. lYalcott, whom it was the author�s privilegenbsp;to accompanj' in a hurried inspection of the Cambrian rocks of thisnbsp;section. That association served as an inspiration and stimulated thenbsp;writer to still more zealousl}^ continue his researches.

The author is further indebted to the Director of the United States Geological Survey and to Prof. Fester F. Ward and his associates in thenbsp;National Museum for the opportunity of examining the collection ofnbsp;Mesozoic and related floras at W^ashington.

Flora.�A brief description of the geological and lithological features of the Trias in this section will be found in the reports of the Geological Survey of Penns3dvania.

In York Countj^ the bedded Triassic series is largely made up of the characteristic red shales, quartz conglomerate, and sandstones,nbsp;matrices not favorable to the preservation of recognizable fossil forms.nbsp;Moreover, intrusive trap, in dikes and great sheets, has contributednbsp;greatlyquot; to modify and disturb the original deposits. Because of thesenbsp;conditions the search after impressions that can be identified is gen-eralh' disappointing and unproductive. A few localities jfield illegible impressions of plants. Occasionallyquot; there is but a dark, earthjLnbsp;carbonaceous band, in a sand bank, or a thin, short seam of coal, a merenbsp;trace of irregular width, unmistakablyquot; to locate a vegetable deposit.

More frequentlyquot; rough casts of limbs or trunks of trees, in blocks of quartz conglomerate or sandstone of varyquot;ing composition, marknbsp;the final resting place of vegetation now decomposed.

described, and the Little Conewago Creek shales, encouraged the hope that like deposits might be found elsewhere and still further enrichnbsp;the contributions to the flora of York County.

It was mainly due to that expectation, a vain one thus lar, that the writer did not publish the results of his geological explorations yearsnbsp;ago, when he first discovered the York Haven locality.

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SPECIES.

Subkingdom P�ERIDOPHYTA (Feins and Fern Allies).

Class FILICALES.

This is a fragment of what seems to be a new species of fern. It is a portion of the terminal part of an ultimate pinna. The plant does not show enough for one tonbsp;make out its true character. The nerves anastomose in an irregular manner. It hasnbsp;the general aspect of a Thinnfeldia, and but for the anastomosis of the nerves mightnbsp;without hesitation be placed in that genus.

As the portion is from the upper part of the frond, the pinnules probably differ from the normal ones lo'wer down on the plant, and hence the true character may notnbsp;be disclosed. There is a midnerve at the base of the pinnules, but it splits up intonbsp;branches. Lateral nerves go off on each side of it from the main rachis very obliquely.nbsp;All the nerves are strong and distinct. They anastomose irregularly at long intervalsnbsp;and form elongate meshes.

It is without doubt a new species and may ty a new genus. Provisional!}^ it may be called Thintifeldia reticulata.

The lobes are decurrent and the rachis winged. Fig. 2, PL XXII, shows the anastomosing nervation. More specimens are needed better to define it.

PI. XXI.

This is a fine specimen of a new and interesting fern. Mr. Fanner�s Fig. 1 gives a good idea of the appearance of the largest specimen as seen with all accidentalnbsp;imperfections. I have attempted in Fig. .3 to indicate its character as seen under thenbsp;lens and omitting accidental imperfections. Figs. 4, 5 give the basal and terminal'

portions of a pinnule magnified three diameters, in onier to show the nervation, which is uncommon. I have very carefully studied it and failed to see some of thenbsp;points given in Mr. Wanner�s Fig. 2. The nerves are more slender than is indicatednbsp;in that figure and more closely placed. There is some indication of a toothing onnbsp;the margins of the pinnules, hut, as I see it, it- is not so constant and regular as thatnbsp;indicated by IMr. Wanner. It appears to he a laceration of the margin at the termination of some of the lateral nerv-es, that is due to accident in the splitting of thenbsp;slate on which the impressions are found. The description is as follows:

The midrib is strong and rigid. The pinnules are opposite or subopposite, and extremely long and slender. They are a little over 5 cm. long and only 4 mm. widenbsp;near their base. They are falcate, with the basal portion of the lamina on the uppernbsp;side of the midnerve a good deal wider than that on the lower side, tending to formnbsp;an ear. This upper basal portion overlaps the lower l)asal portion of the pinnulesnbsp;following next above, and all the pinnules are so closely placed as to overlap or touchnbsp;at their margins.' The pinnules narrow-gradually to a subacute tip. In the lowernbsp;portion of the pinnules there is a distinct midnerve, which is inserted on the rachisnbsp;below the middle of the base of the pinnules. The midnerve disappears in the uppernbsp;part of the pinnule, being split up into very long branches that fork at long intervals.nbsp;These branches and the lateral branches sent off above the base are remarkable fornbsp;their length and closeness of position, and for the fact that they diverge so slightlynbsp;that they are almost parallel. The nerves at base on the upper side of the midnervenbsp;diverge more strongly to fill the ear. Some of the lateral basal nerves, especially onnbsp;the upper aide of the midnerve, go off from the rachis. Lateral nerves go oft fromnbsp;the midnerve on each side so obliquely that they almost follow the course of thatnbsp;nerve. They fork at long intervals, and, as stated before, diverge so slightly thatnbsp;they and their branches are approximately parallel. The branches occasionallynbsp;anastomose in a straggling, irregular manner, so as to form no regular and definitenbsp;meshes.

This plant may form the type of a new genus. It reminds one in its habit of Otozamites, especially of some of the forms of 0. BucMandii, as given by Schenk innbsp;Foss. Flor. der Grenzschichten, more especially of figs. 2, 3, pi. xxxiii, but thenbsp;nervation and other points are different. The nervation, apart from the reticulation,nbsp;resembles the peculiar nervation of some of the forms of Zaniiopsis of the Potomacnbsp;formation. It may be compared with that of Z. insignis, Mon. U. 8. Geol. Survey,nbsp;Yol. XV, pi. Ixv, fig. 4. It is, however, a plant quite different from any speciesnbsp;hitherto described. But for the anastomosis it agrees well with the genus Clado-phlebis, and may be provisionally placed in that genus, with the name C. reticulata.

1'he following is Mr. MTimier�s account of it;

No other specimen found here so completely presents the original in its entirety. The exceptionally w-ell-preserved group of leaves, Fig. 1, PI. XXI, showing the shapenbsp;of the frond, angle of departure of the pinn;e and their shajre, stands alone. Evennbsp;the rootstalk, showing the points where the leaves were attached, as well as numerous slender rootlets, has left its plain impress upon the shale.

A slightly mutilated basal end of a leaflet. Fig. 2, PI. XXI, shows the auricle as well as the forking and anastomosing nerves.

Locality.�N. C. E,. li. cut, south of York Haven.

1856. Pecopteris falcatus F]inm.: Geological Rejiort of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, p. 327, pi. iv, fig. 9.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pecopteris carolinensis Emm.: Op. cit., p. 327, pi. iv, figs 1, 2.

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pecopteris falcatus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 100, j)!. iv, fig. 9.

1857. Pecopteris carolinensis Emm.: Op. cit., p. 100, text fig. 68, pi. iv, figs. 1, 2.

1883. Asterocftrpus virghnensis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. IT. S.

Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 41, pi. xix, figs. 2, 2a, 3-5 ; pi. xx ; pi. xxi, figs. 1, la, lb, 2 ; pi. xxii ; pi. xxiii; pi. xxiv, figs. 1, 2, 2a.

1883. Laccopteris carolinensis (Emm.) Font.: Op. cit., p. 102, pi. xlix, figs. 11, 12, 12a.

Only one important pinna of this plant seems to have been found. Mr. Wanner lig-ured it and says that the figure shows part of a frondnbsp;not referred to an}^ genus because of insufficient data. The nervationnbsp;can not be discerned, nor were any other specimens of its kind found.nbsp;Professor Fontaine seems to have found the specimen, and remarks;

This seems to be a fragment, with small pinnules, of Asterocarpus virginiensis. At least such a fragment of that fossil occurs among Mr. IVanner�s plants.

In Fig. 4 of PL XXII Mr. Wanner depicts a long, narrow leaf as a form of Macro-tieniopteris magyufolia. A careful inspection of this specimen convinces me that it is not M. magnifolia. It is, I think, a Treniopteris, but as the leaf is imperfect and therenbsp;is only one specimen of it, I do not positively identify it as such. If it be one, it isnbsp;the first of the genus found in the Older Mesozoic of the Atlantic States. The following points indicate that it is a Treniopteris: The length is great for a leaf of itsnbsp;small width, and the width changes little throughout. The midrib is strongly definednbsp;and prominent, unlike the vaguely defined, flat midrib of M. magnifolia. No formnbsp;of JL magnifolia as narrow as this ever attained such a length. It reminds onenbsp;strongly of some of the Tasniopterids of the Oroville .lurassic flora. It may also benbsp;compared with T. lenuinervis Brauns. The nerves, however, seem to be finer andnbsp;closer than those of the latter plant.

Fig. 5 of PI. XXII represents a plant that certainly is not i[. magnifolia. It probably is the same with the plant represented bj' Fig. 4.

Fig. 6 of PI. XXII may represent a smaller form of the same plant, or it may be Pseudodnyvropsis reticulata Font. [7I plana (Emm.) Font.] Provisionally the plantnbsp;given in Big. 4 may be called Teemcypteris I yorkensis. It comes from'York Haven,nbsp;N. C. K. K. cut, as do the forms deiiicted in Figs. 5 and 6.

As Professor Fontaine has said, Mr. 'Wanner regarded these specimens as small forms of MacrotcBniopteris magnifolia, and in discussing the larger leaves he almost entirely neglected to comment on themnbsp;after having drawn them. The following is his only allusion to them:

Parts of leaves from the Conewago locality are shown in Figs. 4-6, PL XXII. The only tip found and illustrated, Fig. 6, PL XXII, is somewhat obscure, whilst no basalnbsp;ends have been obtained from here.

1843. Tamiopleris magnifolia Rogers: Philadelphia Association of American Geologistg and Naturalists, 1843, p. 306, pi. xiv, unnumbered flg. on the right, J nat.nbsp;size.

Mr. Wanner has in his collection several good specimens of this plant. On PL XXIV he gives a good representation of a portion of a leaf of the largest size. Fig.nbsp;7 of PL XXII gives a form that is probably M. magnifolia. It may, however, wellnbsp;be some larger Tseniopteris, like T. auperha.

Mr. Wanner took a special interest in this species and gives the following descriptive account:

No impressions of whole leaves were found. PL XXIV shows part of a large leaf with a truncate termination. Figs. 2 and 3, PL XXIII, are ends of other leaves, in allnbsp;cases truncate. Whilst impressions of different parts of leaves are very common atnbsp;the York Haven locality, strange to say, no tips similar to those which one wouldnbsp;expect to find were observed. All ends, as shown, were truncate.

Figs. 8 and 9, PL XXII, are illustrations of typical bases. The side of one is entire, that of the other nearly so.

Fig. 1, PL XXIII, shows the venation. The nerves are tine, parallel, and about one-third of a millimeter apart. In nearly all of the specimens the forking of the nerves is not evident; on the contrary, they seem to be single and parallel to the point ofnbsp;insertion; but in a few specimens, by closer inspection, nerves are seen that fork verynbsp;close to the point of attachment, and apparently within the rachis.

Fontaine calls attention to the difference in shape of the specimens which he examined, a peculiarity which is strikingly presented in the specimens from thesenbsp;two localities.

Localities.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven; Little Conewago Creek, exploitation pit.

1883. Pseudodanxopsis reticulata Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. TJ. S.

Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 59, 116, pi. xxx, figs. 1, 2, 2a, 3, 4, 4a; pi. liv, flg. 3.

Professor Fontaine says of this specimen:

This plant, left in doubt by Mr. Wanner, is almost certainly Fseudodanxopsis reticulata. It has the copious anastomosis, with the thick and smooth leaf substancenbsp;of that plant.

Mr. Warmer�s statement with regard to it is as follows:

The specimen Fig. 1, PI. XXV, contains neither base nor tip, and reveals the nervation shown in Fig. 2 on but a small part of the surface. The nerves are not easily distinguished, evidently because of the thickness of the leaf substance, as indicatednbsp;by the impression. The midrib is prominent and stout. This is the only specimennbsp;of its kind found, though several other impressions somewhat similar, in whichnbsp;no venation can be traced, may belong to the same species.

Locality.�N. C. K. R. cut, south of York Haven.

, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Genus LONCHOPTERIS Brongniart.

PL XXV, Figs. 3-5.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Acrosiichites oblongus Emm.: Geological Eeport of the Midland Counties of

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Acrosiichites oblongus Emm.: American Geology, Part VI, p. 101, pi. iv, figs.

6, 8.

1883. Lonchopteris'oblongus (Emm.) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon.

Mr. Wanner correctly classed this in the genus Lonchopteris. Professor Fontaine says:

This is much like Lonchopteris oblongus of the North Carolina Mesozoic, and most probably is that plant. The pinnules are not smaller than many of those of thenbsp;North Carolina fossil; the nervation is also similar. The only difference is that thenbsp;York fossil has a distinct granulation, strikingly like the fructification of Acrosti-chites. As, however, the fructification of L. oblongus is not known, this feature doesnbsp;not preclude the identification of the York fossil with that of North Carolina.

The following are Mr. Wanner�s notes:

Assuming that the specimens. Figs. 3-6, PI. XXV, are pinnae of a compound fern, the shape of the pinnules, together with the elliptical meshes formed by the anastomosing nerves. Fig. 5, refer this impression to Lonchopteris. The pinnules, however,nbsp;are very much smaller in proportion to the length of the pinnte than in L. virginiensis,nbsp;nor are they so closely crowded together, moreover they show a very pronouncednbsp;variation in size and shape near the base of the pinnae.

Locality.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven.

Genus SAGENOPTERIS Presl.

Sagenoftekis sp. Fontaine.

PI. XXV, Fig. 6.

The very defective character of this specimen makes it doubtful whether it is best to admit it at all, but in view of the special interestnbsp;attaching to the York llorula it mat- stand as a stimulus to further

discovery. As Professor Fontaine says, ��It is too poorly preserved to give any distinct character, but the nervation indicates that it is anbsp;fragment of sonie Sagenopteris.�

Mr. Wanner speaks of it as an undetermined frond, and sa3�s that the figure shows an impression sutKcienth� legible to be referred to anbsp;fern, but so fragmental'}^ as to prevent an}' further conjecture as tonbsp;genus or species. It suggests Thyrsopteris.

1847. Neuroptcri,�S linraciefoUun Bunb.: Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., Vol. Ill, Pt. I, pp. 281, 288, pi. X.

1857. O/dopteris linnmsefolia (Bunb.) Heer: Am. Jour. Sei., 2(1 Ser., Vol. XXIV, p. 428.

188.3. Airofitichites Unnsia'folms (Bunb.) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 25, pi. vi, figs. 3, 3a; pi. vii, figs.nbsp;1-4; pi. viii, figs. 1, la; pi. ix.

Mr. Wanner had doubtfully identified this plant with Mertensides Imllatus Font. Professor Fontaine says:

This identification is probably not correct. I noted several sterile pinnules of xlcwstichite.1 linnaarfol'mit and none of ifertennides hullatm. The specimen is probablynbsp;the former plant.

A fragmentary part of the original, PI. XXV, Figs. 7, 8, seems to belong here. However, other and better specimens are needed satisfactorily to locate it. Fig. 8 shows the venation.

1883. Acrostick'dea microphyllus Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 33, pi. vii, fig. 5; pi. x, fig, 2; pJ. xi, fig. 4; pi. xii, figs. 3, 3a.

Mr. Wanner doubtfully identified this plant with Mcrtensides distaas Font. Professor Fontaine thinks it can not be that species, and remarks:

This small fragment, marked doubtfully as Mertemsides dis/ans, did not show, so far as I could see, the nervation given by Mr. Wanner. The pinnules have a granulationnbsp;that suggests that the plant may be an Acrostichites. If so, it is j)robably -1. micro-phylhis. Another specimen, not figured by Mr. Wanner, shows some rather obscurenbsp;pinnules of A. microphyllus. At the same time the pinnules of Mr. Wanner�s Merten-sides distans look much like his Lonchopteris?

WARD.] TKIASSIC flora of YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 241 The following is Mr. Wanner�s note:

Whilst the exact shape of the pinnules of the frond, PI. XXV, Fig. 9, can not be determined easily, the opposite is true of the nervation. The lower pair of lateral nerves forks twice (Fig. 10), all the rest but once. The pinnae are broken off at each end.nbsp;Only one other .specimen was found.

Locality.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven.

Class EQUISETALES.

Earaily EGtUISETACE^.

Genus EQUISET�M Linnaeus.

Equisetum Rogersii (Bunbury) Schimper.

PI. XXV, Figs. 11, 12.

1851. Calamites Eogersii Bunb.Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, 1851, Proceedings, p. 190.

1869. Equisetum Rogersii (Bunb.) Schimp.: Trait� de Pal�ontologie V�g�tale, Vol. I, p. 276.

Professor Fontaine says of this:

Mr. Wanner indicates by question his doubt regarding the species. He has, without doubt, in his collection a large fragment of a crushed stem of E. Rogersii, showing several nodes and the imprint of a portion of the outer surface of the plant. There are also several small imprints of Equisetum, which suggest the presence ofnbsp;E. Muensteri, but they are too vague to justify this identification.

The following is Mr. Wanner�s description:

The compressed and distorted specimen. Fig. 11, unmistakably reveals the fact in its nodes and appearance that it belongs to the Equiseteee. No other specimens werenbsp;found to shed additional light on its individuality, though a still more fragmentarynbsp;impression made by another member of the same family is illustrated in Fig. 12.

Locality.�The pumping station, N. C. R. R. cut, 600 feet above the plant-bearing shales.

^ Specimens of this species had been several times described and figured by other authors, who confounded it with the Carboniferous species Calamites Suckomi Brongn. Brongniavt distinguishednbsp;It as var. S (Hist. V�g. Foss., p. 125, pi. xvi, fig. 1).

Subkingdom SPERMATOPHYTA (Phanerogams).

Class CYCADALES.

Family OYGADACE^.

1883. Pterophyllmn inxquale Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, A^o). A^I, p. 64, pi. xxxvi.

Mr. Wanner identified this doubtfully with Ctenojjhyllurn Emmomi Font. Professor Fontaine simply says:

This is almost certainly a fragment of Pierophylluni inxquale Font, of the Virginia Older Mesozoic.

The leaf, evidently a Ctenophyllum, has its upper portion pushed out of place, but in such a manner as to be restored easily to its true position. The leaflets are ofnbsp;uniform width, with a slight expansion along the rachis. They are striated bynbsp;closely placed parallel nerves, about one-third of a millimeter apart, some of w'hichnbsp;fork shortly after leaving the rachis. Fig. 3 shows the nervation. Several of thenbsp;leaflets terminate in broadly rounded or truncate tips, which, taken in connectionnbsp;with the absence of any great length, suggests Ctenophyllum Emmmisi. More specimens are needed better to define its properties.

1862. Pterophyllumprinceps Oldh. and Morr.; Mem. Geol. Surv. India, Palseontologia Indica, Ser. II, Foss. FI. Gondw. Syst., Vol. I, Foss. FI. Rajmahal, p. 23,nbsp;pi. x; pi. xi, fig. 1; pi. xii, fig. 1; pi. xiii, figs. 1, 2.

1870. Anomozamites princeps (Oldh. and Morr.) Schimp.; Trait� de Pal�ontologie V�g�tale, Vol. II, p. 142.

Professor Fontaine�s description, which follows, explains the circumstances under which this species was brought to light. For some reason he prefers to retain the original name of Oldham and Morrisnbsp;and call it Pterophyllum princeps., although not only did Schimpernbsp;place it in his genus Anomozamites, but Feistmantel accepted thisnbsp;change and it has been so known since 1870. The figure is Professornbsp;Fontaine�s.

Among the specimens collected by Mr. Wanner is a fragment of a large leaf that has not been figured and described by him. The name given on the label is Macro-

txniopieris magnifolia. This form, in the segmentation of the leaf, is strikingl}' suggestive of a large Pterophyllum, and it most resembles P. princepa Oklh. and Morr., of the Eajmahal flora of India, showing the same variation in the width of the segmentsnbsp;and the same dimensions. As, however, there is only one specimen, it is possiblenbsp;that it is a leaf of Macrotxniopteria magnifolia that has by accident been segmented innbsp;this manner. I have collected many hundred specimens of M. magnifolia from thenbsp;Older Mesozoic of Virginia and have never seen a case of a leaf lacerated by accident that was so suggestive as this. It should be stated also that Emmons mentionsnbsp;seeing in the flora of the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina supposed leaves of M. magnifolia that were so regularly segmented that they attracted his attention as beingnbsp;possibly not that plant. They may well have been some forms similar to this fromnbsp;York.

Genus CTENOPHYLLUM Schimper.

PI. XXVII.

1883. Ctenophyllum grandifolium Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. IT. S.

Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 73, pi. xxxix, figs. 1, la, 2, 3, 3a; pi. xl; pi. xli; pi. xlii, fig. 1.

This specimen was accurately determined and figured by Mr. IVanner. After looking over the collection Professor Fontaine says:

Mr. Wanner has several very good specimens of this plant, and gives some good figures of it.

Mr. Wanner�s notes are as follows;

The leaf, three separated parts of which are shown in Figs. 1,2,3, PI. XXVII, is very fragmentary. One and two closely associated with three in the matrix, the impressions being in the same piece of shale, probably belong to the same leaf and are sonbsp;considered. Only parts of the leaflets remain extending to varying distances fromnbsp;the rachis, in all cases without tips. After a slight expansion they are attachednbsp;throughout their entire width to the rachis. Immediately beyond the midrib somenbsp;of the leaflets are narrowest, from whence they gradually expand. Two of the longest segments at length attain a uniform width, for which reason the same peculiaritynbsp;is assumed to be a characteristic of the leaf.

In this specimen it is difficult to determine whether only some or all of the nerves fork shortly after leaving the rachis, as shown in Fig. 5, a magnified portion of anbsp;leaflet. The nerves are close, about one-third of a millimeter apart, and parallel; innbsp;this specimen they can not be resolved into two nerve strands, a property to whichnbsp;Fontaine calls attention.

Locality.�N. C. K. R. cut, south of York Haven.

PI. XXVIII, Fig. 1.

This was supposed by Mr. Wanner to represent Ctenophyllum Lraunianum var. � of G�ppert, but Professor Fontaine says:

This is a new species of Ctenophyllum, allied to C. Braunianum. The specimen figured by Mr. Wanner is a fine one. There is in his collection a smaller fragment

of the same species, showing leaflets narrower and more delicate than those of the form he depicts. It, however, evidently belongs to the same species. The form givennbsp;by Mr. Wanner may be taken as the type. It has narrower leaflets that are uniformlynbsp;narrow, not more than 1 mm. wide. None of them are entire. The greatest lengthnbsp;seen is 4 cm. They go off from the midrib at an angle of 45� and are inserted on itsnbsp;side after the position of C. Braunianum.

Mr. Wanner ha.s made the following note:

The lower part of the leaf, its apex, and the tips of the leaflets are wanting. Enough, however, remains to present very clearly the characteristics of Clenophyllumnbsp;Braunianum. The long, narrow leaflets, slightly expanded at the base, are attachednbsp;throughout their entire width to the rachis. The closely placed nerves, about six innbsp;number, are parallel.

The few' other specimens found strikingly duplicate the one illustrated in its essential features. In one the leaflets are not more than one-half as wide.

Locality.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven.

Genus DIOONITES Miquel.

PI. XXVIII, Fig. 2.

1843. Pterophyllum Camallianum G�pp.: Uebersicht schles. Ges., 1843, p. 130, pi. i, fig. 4.

1856. Dioonites Carnallianus (G�pp.) Born.: Ueber organische Reste der Lettenkohlen-gruppe Th�ringens, p. 56.

This plant was regarded by Vlr. Wanner as Cterwphylluni Braunianum and classed with the one represented by Fig. 1 of PI. XXIX. Professor Fontaine regards them as different. Of this one he says:

Schenk, in Foss. Flor. der Grenzchichten, pi. xxxix, fig. 4, gives a representation of a plant which he calls Pterophyllum Camallianum, but which Schimper regardednbsp;as a Dioonites. This fossil seems to be identical with one of the specimens considered by Mr. Wanner as Ctenophyllum Braunianum. The Pennsylvania fossil hasnbsp;broader leaflets and stronger nervgs than any form of C. Braunianum. The specimen is the terminal portion of a leaf, not, however, retaining the tip. The length ofnbsp;the fragment is 14 cm. The midrib of the leaf i� stout and rigid, showing a maximum width of 3 mm. It has narrower leaflets, none of which are entire. Thenbsp;largest fragment has a length of 6 cm. The leaflets toward the summit are narrowernbsp;and seemingly shorter. They are set on the midrib at a very large angle (75�-80�).nbsp;The texture of the leaflets seems to have been thin, and they have the same widthnbsp;from base to end. Their width is about 3 mm. The nerves could not be madenbsp;out satisfactorily. This specimen is a finer one than that figured by Schenk.

Mr. Wanner says of it:

Fig. 2 is marked by a somewhat abrupt shortening of the leaflets near the apex, after which their length remains about the same. The leaflets are terminated bynbsp;rounded tips and striated by closely-placed parallel nerves, about one-third of a millimeter apart. It is difficult to trace the nerves to the point of insertion in the rachis,nbsp;but they seem to be parallel throughout their extent.

the Ctenophylla, may or may not be of the species Braunianum, for which reason attention is called to that locality in this connection.

Localities.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven; Little Conewago, exploitation pit, west of Manchester(?).

Mr. Wanner referred this plant very doubtfully to Ctenopliylhim truncatum Font. Professor Fontaine regards it as a new species ofnbsp;Zamites and has refigured it (Fig. 4). The following is his descriptionnbsp;of it:

Schenk, in Foss. Flor. der Grenzschichten, pi. xxxv, flg. 8, gives a figure of a plant that he calls Zamites angustifolius. Schimper named it Podozamites angustifolius. Thenbsp;plant Mr. Wanner calls Clenophyllum truncatum is very much like this. It is a truenbsp;Zamites, as is shown by the insertion of one entire leaflet seen on it. This shows thatnbsp;the leaflets are 3 cm. long, 2 mm. wide, and that they are widest near their base, wherenbsp;they are abuptly rounded off. They are attached by a callosity to the upper surfacenbsp;of the midrib. At their tips they are narrowed to a sharp lancet-shaped termination.nbsp;The nerves are several in number and fine, but were not clearly visible.

Fig. 3, PL XXVIII, shows part, a very fragmentary part, of a leaf containing the bases of several leaflets. Two other specimens from the same locality, one of whichnbsp;contains leaflets only one-half as wide, exhibit certain characteristics easily recognized in this one. No entire leaflets and no tips of leaflets were found. The opposite and rather remote leaflets contract near the line of attachment to the rachis, andnbsp;are neither procurrent nor decurrent. Shortly after emerging from the midribnbsp;many of the nerves fork, after which they continue close together and parallel.nbsp;Were it not for the evident absence of decurrent leaflets the author would refer thenbsp;specimen to Dioonites Buchianm with greater confidence than he feels now in associating it with the partially defined Clenophyllum truncatum. More specimens arenbsp;needed better to define its characteristics.

Mr. Wanner regarded this as probably representing Otenophyllum Braunianum G�pp., and says:

In Fig. 1 the leaflets are very close together, overlapping and pushed over the rachis in such a manner as largely to conceal the midrib and make it difficult tonbsp;determine the exact manner in which the veins depart from the line of contact.nbsp;Fig. 2 represents a magnified portion of a leaflet and shows the venation.

Professor Fontaine sees in it another new species of Zamites, and has retigured the same specimen (Figs. 3, 4) to give his interpretationnbsp;of it. He describes it as follows:

On the fragment of slate that shows the imprint of Tseniopterisf yorkensis, there is an imprint of what seems certainly to be a true Zamites of the type of Z. Feneonis,nbsp;which type characterizes the Jurassic. This plant may be the form depicted by Mr.nbsp;Wanner in Fig. 1, PI. XXIX. If so, the figure does not correctly represent the insertionnbsp;of the leaves. It should also be stated that then the identification of the plant givennbsp;in that figure with Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. a is erroneous. The description ofnbsp;the plant now in question is as follows:

The specimen is a portion of a leaf showing a number of leaflets, some of them entire. The leaves are closely placed, about 26 mm. long, 4 mm. wide, and widestnbsp;at base. They taper to a subacute tip. At base they are slightly auriculate and arenbsp;inserted on the upper surface of the midrib. The nerves are fine and closely placed.nbsp;They are not distinct enough to show the details. Fig. 3 represents the specimennbsp;of natural size, and 4 gives a leaflet enlarged 2 diameters, and partly restored. Thisnbsp;and the preceding constitute the first species of Zamites found in the older Mesozoicnbsp;flora of the Eastern States.

Genus PODOZAMITES Friedrich Braun.

PoDOZAMiTES DiSTANS (Pi�esl) Friedrich Braun?

PL XXIX, Figs. 5-7.

1833. Zamites distans Presl in Sternberg: Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. II, p. 196, pi. xli, fig. 1.

1843. Podozamites dislam (Presl) Friedrich Braun in M�nster: Beitrilge zur Petrefac-tenkunde, Vol. II, Pt. VI, p. 28.

Mr. Wanner identified this doubtfully wfith Zamites tenuinervis Font. Professor Fontaine says:

These are not Zamites tenuinervis, but fragments of some other Zamites or Podozamites. The fragments are too obscure to determine fully. The smaller fragment is like Schenk�s Zamites distans {Podozamites distam), as given in Foss. Flor. der Grenz-schichten, pi. xxxvi, figs 1-9, 9a, 9b. The larger resembles the variety given in fig.nbsp;10 of the same plate.

Mr. Wanner has the following note:

Figs. 5 and 7 of PL XXIX show parts of detached leaflets containing the remains of basal ends exhibiting properties which agree with those described by Fontaine. Nonbsp;whole leaves and no tips were found.

Fig. 6 shows the venation. The veins are parallel, very fine and close, being about one-tenth of a millimeter apart. The surface of some leaflets presents a regularlynbsp;banded appearance, owing to the prominence of stronger nerves, about one in five.

Locality.�Little Conewago Creek, lowest horizon.

Grenus SPHENOZAMITES Brong-niart.

PI. XXIX, Figs. 8, 9.

1883. Sphenozamites Rogersianus Font, Older Mesozoic Flora, of Virginia, Mon. U.

S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 80, pi. xliii, figs. 1, la; pi. xliv, figs. 1, 2, 2a, 2b; pi. xlv, figs. 1, 2.

Professor Fontaine simplj^ remarks that this is correctly determined. Mr. Wanner�s notes are veiy meager:

Figs 8 and 9, PI. XXIX, present part of a turned-over leaf. The specimen is poor but shows the dichotomous forking of the nerves and the transverse bars, characteristicsnbsp;of Fontaine�s type specimen.

But two specimens were found; the other, being equally fragmentary, while it agrees with the one illustrated, reveals nothing additional.

Locality.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven.

Genus CYCADEOSPERM�M Saporta.

PI. XXIX, Fig. 10.

Mr. AVanner called this a �seed of Leptostrobus.� Professor Fontaine says:

This is not a seed of Leptostrobus but is probably one of some cycad. It is almost circular in form and looks somewhat as if it were winged, as represented by Mr. Wanner. This appearance is probably due to the accentuation, from pressure, of thenbsp;thicker central portion of the nut. It has the dimensions 8 by 11 mm. It may benbsp;called Cycadeospermum Wanneri.

Mr. Wanner says of it:

This seed, by reason of association with Leptostrobus, has been referred to it. Seeds of this kind were not found at York Haven. They are plentiful at the othernbsp;locality, on the Little Conewago, suggestively associated with Brachyphyllum but notnbsp;with Leptostrobus, the latter being unknown in this locality and represented by onlynbsp;one specimen at York Haven.

Locality.�Little Conewago Creek, li miles west of Manchester, exploitation pit, green shale.

1 In view of the fact that Professor Fontaine did not find at Williams College the specimen figured by Emmons in his American Geology, Part VI, pi. vi, fig. 5, and described on p. 35 under the namenbsp;Calamites punctatus, considered to belong to this species (see Mon. �. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 98,nbsp;and infra, p. 288) it is not thought best to enter that form in the synonymy, especially as its earliernbsp;date would involve a change of nomenclature.

Class BENNETTITALES.

Family BElSTlSrETTITACE^.

1888. Palissya? sp. Newb.: Fossil Fishes and Fossil Plants of the Triassic Rocks of New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley, Mon. TJ. S. Geol. Survey, Vol.nbsp;XIV, p. 94, pi xxvi, figs. 1, 2.

Mr. Wanner designated this as the �trunk of a conifer?� resting the case on the figures of Dr. Newberrjr. Professor Fontaine, however, regards it as a Cycadeomyelon not hitherto described, andnbsp;remarks:

This is an imprint of the same kind as those Saporta has described, with the generic name Cycadeomyelon, in Pal�ont. fran^aise, Plantes Jurassiques, Tome II,nbsp;pp. 331-332. He considers them as casts of partly decayed cycad trunks. The cigarshaped prominences on this fossil are decidedly larger than those of Saporta�s C. het-iangensis. If it is worth while giving a name to it, it might be called Cycadeomyelonnbsp;yorkense.

Dr. J. S. Newberry, in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. XIV, p. 94, pi. xxvi, figs. 1, 2, illustrates and describes what he supposed to be the decorticated trunk of somenbsp;conifer from Newark, New Jersey. A similar impression from here, Fig. 1, PI. XXX,nbsp;comes from a locality which yielded nothing else. For that reason as well as because ofnbsp;the decorticated and compressed condition of the specimen, no additional light isnbsp;shed upon the character of the trunk which produced it. Thin seams of carbonizednbsp;vegetable matter are irregularly included in the overlapping folds that mark thenbsp;specimen. The section, Fig. 2, is drawn at the point of greatest width.

Locality.�Fox Eun, one-eighth of a mile from its junction with the Little Conewago Creek.

There seems scarcely any doubt that whatever the stems from Newark may be, this one from York represents the same plant. Dr.nbsp;Newberry�s fig. 2 is almost exactly the same as Mr. Wanner�s Fig. 1.nbsp;Dr. Newberry refers to the specimen called VoUzia coburgensis Schaur.,nbsp;figured by Schenck in Palseontographica, Vol. XI, pi. xlvi, fig. 2, andnbsp;there certainly is a close resemblance between this figure and those ofnbsp;the American specimens.

It may not be out of place to draw attention to the somewhat similar class of objects which I have described under the name Feistmantelia.*nbsp;The specimen from the Lettenkohl, near W�rzburg, forms a sort ofnbsp;transition between some of the forms to which I there call attentionnbsp;and those now under consideration.

I Nineteenth Ann. Rept. IT. S. Geol. Survey, Pt. 11, 1899, pp. 693-696, pi. clxix, fig. 19.

Class GINKGOALES.

Family G-LISTKO-OACE^.

Genus BAIEEA Friedrich Braun.

PL XXXI, Figs. 1, 2.

1838. Sphserococdtes Muenslerianus Presl in Sternberg: Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. II, p. 105, pi. xxviii, fig. 3.

1843. Baiera dichotoma Fr. Braun in M�nster: Beitrage zur Petrefactenkunde,Vol. II, Pt. VI, p. 20, pi. xii, figs. 1-8.

1863. Jeanpaulia Bchlagintweitiana Popp : Neues Jalirb f. Mineralogie, 1863, p. 412. 1866. Jeanpaulia Muensteriana (Presl) Schenk: Foss. Flor. der Grenzschichten desnbsp;Keuper und Lias Frankens, p. 39, pi. ix.

1878. Baiera Muemleriana (Presl) Heer in Saporta: Plantes Jurassiques. Pal�ontol-ogie Fran5aise, 2e S�r., Vol. Ill, p. 272, pi. clr [xxvii], figs. 10-12; pi. clvi [xxviii], figs. 1-6 ; pi. civil [xxix ], figs. 1-3.

Mr. Wanner thought this might be a Baieropsis. Professor Fontaine admits its doubtful character, and sai^s:

This is an obscure and very fragmentary specimen. It is too imperfect to show anything definite, but may be a small form of Baiera Munateriana. It is a smallnbsp;form, resembling that plant.

Mr. Wanner�s note is equally brief:

The few specimens found are so fragmentary as to present but little more than outlines; yet in general appearance they sufficiently resemble Baieropsis to justify their being referred to some species of that genus.

Localities.�X. C. K. E. cut, south of York Haven; Little Cone-wago, lowest horizon.

Class CONIFERS.

Family FFNA.OEFE.

Genus PALISSYA Eudlicher.

Palissya sphenolepis (Friedrich Braun) Brongniart.

PI. XXXH.

1843. Cunninghamites sphenolepis Fr. Braun: Beitr. z. Urgeschichte d. Pfianzen, Pro-gramm z. Jahresber. d. K�n. Kreis-Landw. u. Gewerbsschule z. Bayreuth, pp. 17, 18, pi. ii, figs. 16-20; also in Miinster: Beitrage zur Petrefac-tenkunde, Vol. II, Pt. VI, p. 24, pi. xiii, figs. 16-20.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Walchia longifolius Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Walchia longifolius Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 105, pi. iv�.

Mr. 'Wanner determined this plant correct!}', following Professor Fontaine in the use of the synonymy P. Braunii of Endlicher. Asnbsp;Endlicher founded the genus Palissya on the plants that Braun callednbsp;Cunnincjliamites sphenolepis and carefully described and fig'ured in twonbsp;prominent places, he had, of course, no right whatever to changenbsp;Braun�s specific name.

There are numerous fine specimens of P. Braunii in Mr. Wanner�s collection. Some of them are better and larger than any previously known to me. One of thesenbsp;large specimens shows a feature not seen by me on any previously known fossils.nbsp;The young, undeveloped branches are seen in the axils of the leaves. Fig. 2, PI.nbsp;XXXII, represents one of these forms, and Fig. 1, of the same plate, gives a goodnbsp;representation of one of the large fragments.

Part of a large limb. Fig. 1, PL XXXII, containing broken branches and leaves in a fairly good state of preservation, exhibits the characteristics of the plant as presentednbsp;in this and other specimens. Fig. 4 represents a leaf magnified to show the venation.nbsp;The midrib is prominent. The leaves are decidedly decurrent and, when not pushednbsp;out of place or macerated, as is frequently the case, are uniformly and strongly falcate. Another specimen. Fig. 2, only part of the impression in the shale, presents anbsp;different phase and well illustrates the changed appearance caused by the presence ofnbsp;young shoots. Fig. 5 illustrates part of another limb containing fewer young branchesnbsp;of greater length than those shown in Fig. 2. Another specimen. Fig. 3, naturalnbsp;size, shows the leaf scars.

The descriptions of Palissya Braunii, to which the author has had access, are very meager and unsatisfactory, hence, notwithstanding the fact that his specimens arenbsp;well defined, he is unable to assert, with any degree of certainty, that the plantnbsp;belongs here. It strongly suggests Sequoia Reichenhachi.

Localities.�^York Haven, N. C. B. R. cut; Little Conewago Creek, exploitation pit and lowest horizon.

PI. XXXI, Figs. 3-6.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Walchia diffusus Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Walchia {Lycopodites) diffusus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 105, pi. iii,

1883. Palissya diffusa (Emm.) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. �. S.

1883. Cheirolepis Muensteri (Schenk) Schimp, in Fontaine: Op. cit., p. 108, pi. liii, fig. 3.

Mr. Wanner has correctly determined this plant, of which he has a number of very fine specimens. Some of them are much finer than any obtained by even Emmonsnbsp;from the North Carolina beds. There is some difference between the Pennsylvania andnbsp;the North Carolina fossils. The Pennsylvania specimens do not show such a markednbsp;recurving of the leaves as those from North Carolina, and the midnerve of the

leaves is not so distinct. These features may be due to the accidents of preservation, and do not call for the separation of the Pennsylvania plant as a variety. Thenbsp;leaves of this form are strikingly like those of Cheirolepis gracilis Feistm. of thenbsp;Eajmahal flora.

The following is Mr. Manner�s recoi�d:

Fig. 3, PI. XXXI, represents a very symmetrical branch in an excellent state of preservation. Both twigs and leaves are crowded closely together. Fig. 4 presents another specimen, containing near the extremity of one of its lateral branches thenbsp;impression made by some kind of a fruit. Beyond the general outline and the unmistakable imprint made by the stem, by which it is attached to the twig, the fruit contains no definite markings to give it character. In another specimen not illustratednbsp;the leaves are somewhat larger. Fig. 5 shows the venation in a magnified leaf.

Palissya diffusa is common at the York Haven locality and may be represented at the Little Conewago Creek, but the few fragmentary specimens from the latter placenbsp;cannot be positively identified.

Locality.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven.

Genus BRACHYPHYLLUM Brongniart.

PI. XXXI, Figs. 6-9.

Mr. Wanner identified this with Brachyphyllum crassicaule^owt., of the Potomac flora. Professor Fontaine does not accept this, and says:

This is not Brachyphyllum crassicaule, but a new and smaller species, which may appropriately bear the name B. yorkense.

There are in Mr. Wanner�s collection several imprints of a small Brachyphyllum which resembles Saporta�s B. Papareli, a plant of the Ehetic and Infralias of France.nbsp;It is, however, I think, a new species. Mr. Wanner�s figure shows the most complete specimen. The ultimate twigs on this are very slender. The full length ofnbsp;none of them is shown. They are only 2 mm. wide. The leaves seem to be thinnernbsp;in texture than those of the Jurassic Brachyphylla. They are rotundate-rhombic innbsp;form, with the longer diameter transverse to the axis of the twdg. Fig. 8 shows thenbsp;shape of the best-preserved forms, the enlargement being 3 diameters. They arenbsp;subspirally arranged, somewhat after the fashion of those of Palteocyparis (Echinostro-bus) of the Oolite.

Mr. Wanner says of it:

Fig. 6, PI. XXXI, presents a branch containing closely placed lateral twigs. Other specimens from the same locality vary considerably in the number of branches,nbsp;usually having fewer than are contained in the illustration. No terminal branchesnbsp;were identified to a certainty, though several blunt ends may represent extremities,nbsp;and if such is the case the width of the branch remains the same throughout itsnbsp;extent. The leaves are thick and closely appressed, with beaks and a scarcelynbsp;perceptible keel, as illustrated in Fig. 7, a magnified leaf.

Locality.�Little Conewago Creek, exploitation pit.

With regard to the small specimen. Fig. 9, Professor Fontaine remarks:

I did not see this small fragment. It is probably a portion of a twig of Brachyphyllum yorkense, above described.

Mr. Wanner�s note upon it was as follows:

This specimen, Fig. 9, PI. XXXI, is suggestive of Frenelopsis, and that is about all that can be said of it. It is a fragment of a stem of some sort, the only one of thatnbsp;kind found. No traces of leaves and no marks of any sort are visible.

Locality.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven.

Genus CHEIROLEPIS Schirnper.

PL XXXIII, Figs. 1, 2.

1867. Brachyphyllum Muensteri Schenk: FI. der Grenzsehichten des Keupersund Lias Frankens, p. 187, pi. xliii, figs. 1-3, 3a, 3b, 4-12, 12a.

1870. Cheirolepis Muensteri (Schenk) Schimp : Trait� de Pal�ontologie V�g�tale, Vol.

This fine plant was correctly determined and well figured by Mr. Wanner. Professor Fontaine remarks :

Mr. Wanner�s collection has a number of specimens of this plant which he has correctly determined and figured well. Some of them are splendid fragments, muchnbsp;finer even than those figured by Schenk. It should be stated that the specimens ofnbsp;this plant hitherto found in the United States are small and imperfect. The finding of such fine imprints of this and a number of other older Mesozoic plants makesnbsp;these Pennsylvania localities very important.

The following is Mr. Wanner�s note :

A limb. Fig. 1, PI. XXXIII, bearing branches and twigs, with short decurrent leaves, falcate in arrangement, admirably illustrates the characterictics of the species. Thenbsp;other illustration. Fig. 2, presents a remarkablj' well preserved and symmetricalnbsp;branch, a property, however, not peculiar to a few specimens, but belonging to mostnbsp;of those found.

Localities.�N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven ; Little Cone-wago Creek, exploitation pit and lowest horizon.

Genus SCHIZOLEPIS Friedrich Braun.

PI. XXXIII, Figs. 3-5.

1847. Lepidodendron liaso-keuperinum. Fr. Braun: Flora, Neue Reihe, Jahrg. V [XXX], p. 84.

1852. ITalochloris haruthina Ett.: Abh. d. k. k. Geol. Reichsanst., Vol. I, Pt. Ill, No. 3, p. 6, pi. ii, fig. 4.

1867. Schizolepis Braunii Schenk: Foss. FI. der Grenzsehichten des Keupers und Lias, p. 179, pi. xliv, figs. 1-4, 4a, 5.

Mr. Wanner believed that the specimen. Fig. 5, represented a different plant from that of Figs. 3 and 4. The latter he regarded as

Sequoia Re'lclienbaciii longifolia of the Potomac formation, Avhile the other he identified with Leptostrobus folioms, also of the Potomac.

Professor Fontaine finds them the same, and refers this form to the S'cliizolepis Braunii of Schenk. Schenk worked over all of Braun�snbsp;material, from the Rhetic of Veitlahm, near Culmbach, in the vicinitynbsp;of Baireuth, in Bavaria, and found that he had given several names tonbsp;this form. As it isa Schizolepis, Braun�s name, S. Uaso-heuqyeriiiaymxstnbsp;be retained, and can not be changed to S. Braunii, as Schenk proposednbsp;to do.

This is Avhat appears to be a specimen of Schizolepis Braunii, differing from the type only in the somewhat narrower leaves. This is given in PI. XXXIII, Fig. 3. Fig. 5nbsp;of this same plate giA^es a plant Avhich Mr. Wanner calls Leptosirohus foliosits. It is thenbsp;same Schizolepis. This latter specimen is a fragment of a large tAvig, with seA^eralnbsp;ultimate branches carrying leaves.

i\Ir. Wanner�s notes follow. Relativ^e to the first of these specimens he says:

Two specimens Avere found, only the better of which. Fig. 3, PL XXXIII, is illustrated. They probably belong to a ncAV species. The author is unable to locate the specimen, and names it as he does simply because the leaves in Avidth and falcatenbsp;arrangement, particularly in the specimen not drawn, suggest Sequoia Beichenbachinbsp;longifolia Font. Fig 4 shows a leaf magnified tAVo diameters.

In the only specimen collected, Fig. 6, PI. XXXIII, the parallel nerves are faintly visible in several leaves, but the number is not definitely revealed. Three nervesnbsp;are recognized beyond question, but doubt exists as to whether or not there is another.nbsp;As yet no entire leaf has been found. Closely crowded pit marks on the maceratednbsp;stems indicate a dense foliage, Avithout betraA'ing the order in Avhich the leaves Averenbsp;attached.

Mr. Wanner made scarcely an}^ attempt to identify this specimen, and contents himself with saying:

The author is unable to locate Fig. 1, PI. XXXIV. The venation is shown in Fig. 2. Another specimen, not draAvn, has leaves of about the same length, but of greaternbsp;width. In it the nerves still more plainly converge at the tip.

Professor Fontaine is in doubt with regard to the generic affinities, and describes it as a new species, probably of Araucai�ites. He says:

The specimen figured by Mr. Wanner is a portion of a twig with a number of small leaves. These in size resemble somewhat Saporta�s Araucaria microphylla. On thenbsp;label accompanying this plant Mr. AVanner has giA'en the name Nageiopsis heleropliylla f

I have carefully examined this specimen. The nerves are too obscure to be made out with positiveness, and I am not sure that thej^ are not single in each leaf. If sonbsp;the plant is a Palissya. Mr. AVanner speaks of a second specimen which I have notnbsp;seen. If the nerves be really numerous, as he gives them, the plant is probably annbsp;Araucarites, and possibly the same with the cone in his collection.

Mr. Wanner merely says of this that it shows the impression made by part of a large cone. The specimen is too fragmentary to henbsp;identified or described. Professor Fontaine makes it a new species ofnbsp;Araucarites, which he describes as follows:

This is an imprint of a portion of what must have been a fine, large cone. It is not complete enough to show certainly the original shape, but a globular form isnbsp;indicated, with a diameter of about 6 cm. The impressions of the terminations of anbsp;number of scales are quite distinct, and they have the character of Araucarites. Itnbsp;might be called Araucarites yorkensis. This may be the cone of Araucarites ? penn-sylvanicus, determined from a leafy branch.

Class MONOCOTYLEDONEaE.

Mr. AVanner regards this plant as a new species of grass. The specimen he uses as a type shows no distinct features. The supposed leaves appear to me to be longnbsp;succulent stems of some kind. I am not prepared to say that the plant is not somenbsp;form of grass.

Graminea;. Yorkia nov. gen.: leaves long, narrow, smooth, thick, and deeply channeled, with no perceptible variation in width. In the specimen illustrated. Fig. 4, PI. XIA^, there are no whole leaves, nor were any found, but the impressions indicate that none were less than 15 cm. in length, ranging from 1 to 2 mm. in width.nbsp;An indistinct impression at the base can be traced clearly, but can not be resolved intonbsp;more than a faint vegetable imprint. Markings made by slender roots extend a shortnbsp;distance below the base. No tips of leaves were observed, but Fig. 6 representsnbsp;the nearest approach to an entire end. Fig. 5 shows the base of another cluster ofnbsp;leaves, about which is a delicate obscure mantle produced by some organic substance.

The Marquis Saporta described and figured,' under the name of Poacites, a considerable number of g-rass-like forms from the Mesozoicnbsp;of Portugal, some of them from the Infralias, others from the uppermost Jura, and still others from the Lower Cretaceous. The}� werenbsp;all supposed to represent portions of leaves and not culms. The plantnbsp;discovered by Mr. Wanner closely resembles some of these, but thenbsp;leaves are much longer than any obtained by M. Choffat from thenbsp;Portuguese beds. If these leaves grew directly from a csespitose base,nbsp;as Mr. Manner�s figures would imply, it is difficult to refer them tonbsp;the grass family, but if Fig. 5 represents a short collection of culmsnbsp;giving off leaves from their upper nodes, this would not wholly negative the idea of their belonging to the Graminese, as Mr. Wanner supposes. At any rate, the form is quite definite and extremely interesting.nbsp;I therefore retain the generic name suggested by Mr. Wanner, whichnbsp;carries with it no systematic implications, and express the likeness ofnbsp;the plant to a grass by the specific name chosen. The systematic position given to the plant is, of course, mereL^ conjectural.

The following general remark by Professor Fontaine on Mr. Wan-ner�s collection and work may fittingly conclude this part of our subject:

Mr. tVanner has succeeded in making a surprisingly good and varied collection of fossils. A number of them had not yet been found in the Trias of America. Some ofnbsp;them are apparently new. A number of splendid impressions of fossils previouslynbsp;described are found in his material. These are better specimens than those by whichnbsp;these fossils have been hitherto known. Mr. Wanner deserves great credit for hisnbsp;intelligent use of the opportunity afforded him for collecting from a region hereto-f�re not knowm as yielding good plants.

The plants in this collection seem to indicate a somewhat higher Mesozoic horizon than that of the Virginia, and even of the North Carolina beds, being more decidedlynbsp;Ehetic in character.

In 1883^ Mr. P. Frazer, in treating the New Red Sandstone Region, makes passing mention �of a plant bed in Frederick County, Md.�nbsp;At the meeting of the Geological Society of America on Decembernbsp;30, 1890, in the course of the discussion of Dr. Williams�s paper onnbsp;the Petrography and Structure of the Piedmont Plateau in Maryland,nbsp;Mr. Charles S. Prosser called attention to the remark quoted above andnbsp;asked Dr. Williams for further information.��

Fossils have recently been found in two localities in the Triassic of Frederick County, Maryland: first, by Professor Philip E. TJhler, about 2 miles west of Fred-

^ Flore Fossile du Portugal, Direction des Travaux G�ologiques du Portugal, Lisbonne, 1894.

erick; and, secondly, by Mr. S. L. Powell, not far from Utica Mills. Those collected by Mr. Powell are from the red shales, and are very abundant. Some of the formsnbsp;resemble nuts; others may be interlacing roots.'

I am not aware that anything has been published relative to the discoveries of either Professor Uhler or Mr. Powell here recorded.

In the spring of 1890 there were discovered in the red sandstone quarries at Seneca, on the Potomac, at the mouth of Seneca Creek,nbsp;Maryland, some very fine specimens of Dendrophycus. The first ofnbsp;these, and the finest that has been found, was brought to the Nationalnbsp;Museum on May 7 b}^ Mr. D. L. Shoemaker, proprietor of the quarriquot;.nbsp;I recognized it at once and took so deep an interest in it that I visitednbsp;the place a few days later, in company with Mr. Charles S. Prosser,nbsp;and we collected a number of additional specimens. They are wellnbsp;marked and typical of this form; but, like all others thus far known,nbsp;are destitute of organic matter or coaly pellicle. They closely resemble D. Desorii Lx., of the Devonian of Iowa, a fine specimen of whichnbsp;is in the collection of the National Museum, but they have the rednbsp;color of the building stone in which they occur. They differ perhapsnbsp;more from the form found in the Trias at Portland, Connecticut, andnbsp;named by Dr. Newberry D. triassicus^ of which mention has alreadynbsp;been made. It is, however, interesting to know that this genusnbsp;occurs at two widely separated localities of this formation.

Important differences exist between these and the Maryland specimens, differences sufficient to constitute the latter a distinct species. I shall therefore call this species Dendrophycus ShoemaJceri, therebynbsp;acknowledging Mr. Shoemaker�s kindness in bringing the above-mentioned specimen to the Museum, without which act the existencenbsp;of this form in the Maryland deposit might never have been discovered.

The fine specimen brought by Mr. Shoemaker was carefully photographed, under the immediate supervision of Mr. De Lancey W. Gill, and the accompanying half-tone illustration shows with great minuteness all the details of structure; and I also had photographs taken ofnbsp;the best specimen collected by Mr. Prosser and myself. This last isnbsp;represented on PI. XXXV, Fig. 2, and by the side of it, Fig. 1, is thenbsp;view of D. triassicus Newb., of Portland, Connecticut, already mentioned (supra, p. 228). PI. XXXVI is the view of the original specimennbsp;brought by Mr. Shoemaker, the most complete thus far found.

Upper portions of the so-called rhizomes alone present, forming the rachis of the frond. Fronds very numerous, covering large areas, 8 to

10 cm. long, 5 cm. broad at the summit, consisting of 3 to 5 secondary divisions proceeding alternateh�^ from each side of the rachis at anbsp;uniform angle of about 30�, these again throwing off tertiary branchesnbsp;chiefly from the other side, some of which still further fork or ramify,nbsp;forming a spreading fan-shaped mat of overlapping fibers covei'ingnbsp;the rock. The surface of the rock is very uneven, the fronds forming reliefs, and each branch, strand, or subdivision constituting a smoothnbsp;raised ridge or line. The counterparts of the fronds of course presentnbsp;the opposite features, the reliefs becoming intaglios.

This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the question whether Dendrophycus really represents a plant. I will only say thatnbsp;Professor Fontaine, who has not only seen all the Seneca and Portland specimens but has visited the locality and examined their mode ofnbsp;occurrence, does not, any more than did Dr. Newberry, hesitate tonbsp;pronounce them as of vegetable nature. I reserve my own opinion, ifnbsp;I can be said to have one, until more and stronger evidence shall benbsp;produced.

Fossil plants were early discovered in the rich beds of the Richmond coal field, and mention of them was from time to time made by geologists and other riters near the beginning of the century.

Among the earliest of these mentions was that of Mr. William Maclure, in 1817.^ After having discussed the primitive formationsnbsp;of the more northern sections, he proceeds to speak of�

range of secondary, extending with some intervals, from the Connecticut to the Rappahannock rivers, in wddth generally from 15 to 25 miles; hounded onnbsp;the northeast, at New Haven, by the sea, where it ends to recommence on thenbsp;south side of Hudson River. * * * This secondary formation is interrupted after itnbsp;passes Frederiokstown, but begins again between Monocacy and Seneca creeks, thenbsp;northeastern boundaries crossing the Potomac by the west of Cartersville, touchesnbsp;the primitive near the Rappahannock, where it finishes. * * * About 10 or 12nbsp;miles west of Richmond, Virginia, there is an independent coal formation, 20 to 25nbsp;miles long, and about 10 miles wide; it would not be far distant from the range ofnbsp;the red sandstone formation had it continued so far south; it is situated in an oblongnbsp;basin, having the whitish freestone, slaty clay, etc., with vegetable impressions, asnbsp;well as most of the other attendants of that formation.�

This last hint is of special interest in view of the fact that all the more northern deposits are of the red or brown sandstone, while thatnbsp;of the Virginia basin, in the vicinity of Richmond, is a true coalnbsp;formation, and Mr. Maclure must therefore have derived this information largel}^ from jjaleontological data.

mbservatlons on the Geology of the United States of America, by William Maclure, Philadelphia, 1817. (See pp. 39-49.)

regard to this same formation. Speaking of what he calls � the second calcareous formation,� he says:

111 its geographical limits it occupies a position universally to the east of the primitive and transition formations. * * * It appears, however, to be destitute of the concomitant minerals, excepting, indeed, it were possible to conceive it in connection with the coal basins of Richmond, which I have found on examination tonbsp;be actually underlaid with a calcareous rock of peculiar appearance. Mr. Heath�snbsp;coal mines, and in fact nearly all of them, except those which were in a state of combustion, are overlaid by a massive micaceous conglomerate, or grit rock, containingnbsp;crystals of feldspar like porphyry, in which, besides gigantic mlmarii, occur veins ofnbsp;the argentine calcareous spar of Kirwan. * * * In the bituminous slate clay,nbsp;which, as usual, accompanies this coal, besides impressions of ferns and the supposed Equiseta, there are vestiges of some enormous flaccid-leaved gramineous plant,nbsp;leaves of one of the Scitamineae similar to those of the ginger, and fine casts of anbsp;palm resembling the pennate fronds of some species of Zamia or cycad. * * �nbsp;Although there can remain but little doubt of the continuity of the Floetz limestonenbsp;we are endeavoring to trace toward the south, still, in consequence of the morenbsp;recent alluvial deposits, it is not again discernible until we arrive in North Carolina.

Relative to his �gigantic Culmarii,� he appends a footnote explaining that it �is an assumed generic name for an assemblage of extinct Zoophytes, one species of which is the Phytolithus striaticulmis ofnbsp;Martin�s Petrificata Derbiensia.� This Phytolithus striaticulmis is anbsp;Calamites, and the Culmarii described by Nuttall are undoubtedlj^ thenbsp;Equisetum Pogersii (Bunb.) Schimp.

Mr. Richard C. Taylor, in 1834,�^ was somewhat unfortunate in combating the views of Nuttall and Maclure relative to the secondary age of the Richmond coal field, and in claiming for it a Carboniferousnbsp;age. But he was supported by the opinion of Adolphe Brongniartnbsp;upon a specimen which had been sent to him, which he had identifiednbsp;as Calamites Suclcowii Brongn., but of which species he made it a newnbsp;variety, and in describing it he remarked:

La var. S, dont la surface externe est assez mal conserv�e, se rapporte cependant S, cette esp�ce par sa'forme g�n�rale et par la t�nuit� de L�corce. Les c�tes sont seule-ment plus convexes, ce qui peut tenir � une moindre compression; car ces tiges, quinbsp;�taient probablement verticales, paraissent avoir �t� comprim�es dans Ie sens de leurnbsp;longueur, et presentent des replis nombreux qui semblent indiquer combien leursnbsp;parois �taient minces et flexibles. Cet �chantillon est m�me fort remarquable sousnbsp;ce rapport, et prouve que ces tiges �taient flstuleuses comme celles des Equisetumnbsp;vivans.^

In an article by Mr. A. W. Wooldridge,� president of the Midlothian Mining Company, mention is made of the occurrence of �vegetablenbsp;remains, such as ferns, bark, and knobs of wood found in the slatenbsp;overlying the coal � in the basin which is now more generally understood by the name of the Richmond coal field.

1 Memoir of a section passing through the bituminous coal field near Richmond, in Virginia, by-Richard C. Taylor: Trans. Geol. Soc. Pennsylvania, Vol. I, p. 275.

3 Geological and statistical notice of the coal mines in the vicinity of Richmond: Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. XLIII, 1842, pp. 1-14 (see pp. 9 and 11).

At the Thii�d Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geologists and Naturalists, held at Boston in 1842, Prof. W. B. Rogers read a very important paper On the Age of the Coal Bocks of Easternnbsp;Virginia. The second and much larger part of this paper is devotednbsp;to the description of the vegetable remains known to him at that date,nbsp;and of which he enumerates some dozen species. This paper wasnbsp;published in the Transactions of the Association for that year (pp.nbsp;298-316), and is accompanied by a plate (pi. xiv), on which three ofnbsp;these species are figured. ' It is reproduced in the Geology of thenbsp;Virginias, New York, 1884, pp. 645-668, with the plate.

When Sir Charles Lyell was making his journey through the United States, so fruitful in geological results, he visited this coal field in thenbsp;vicinity of Richmond and made a careful study of the strata and of thenbsp;remains of animal and vegetable life. He took back with him to England a quantity of the material which he had collected and handed thenbsp;vegetable remains over to Sir Charles J. F. Bunbury for determination. Bunbury�s report upon this collection was contributed to thenbsp;Geological Society of London, and published in 1847.^ Bunbury describes in this paper about fifteen different forms, a few of which werenbsp;not the same as those described by Rogers, with whose paper he wasnbsp;acquainted. He shared with Lyell and Rogers the belief that Cala-mites occurred in this formation, and several of the coniferous formsnbsp;were provisionally referred by him to Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, andnbsp;Knorria.

On June 18, 1849, Mr. Jules Marcou made a communication to the Geological Society of France on the coal of Chesterfield County, Virginia, near Richmond.Mr. Marcou had recently visited the Chesterfield bed and had observed the abundant plant remains. He collectednbsp;many of them and discusses their affinities, relying apparently uponnbsp;Bunbury�s determinations. Nevertheless, he refers these beds to thenbsp;Keuper, which was at least a shrewd guess.

The paper which Professor Rogers read before the Boston Society of Natural History on January 4, 1854,� makes mention of the fossilnbsp;plants of the Richmond coal field, but adds nothing to what he hadnbsp;previously said on this subject. His statement, however, that � in thenbsp;belt in Virginia, toward the Potomac River * * * he had met,nbsp;in the more sandy rocks, vegetable impressions which, althoughnbsp;obscui�e, are strongly suggestive of the leaves of Zamites,� furnishesnbsp;a datum point for future investigations. It is to be regretted that henbsp;did not definitely locate these discoveries. One additional line describing the exact spot at which these remains were observed might havenbsp;saved weeks of patient search to the student of the present generation,

1 Description ol fossil plants from the coal field near Eichmond, Virginia, by C. J. P. Bunbury: Quart, Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. Ill, Pt. I,pp. 281-288, pis. x, xi.

�Note sur la houille du comt� de Chesterfield, pr�.s de Eichmond (�tat de Virginie), par J. Marcou: Bull. Soc. g�ol. de France,2d series. Vol. VI, 1848-1849, pp. 572-575.

Mr. Jules Marcou, as we have seen, had visited this region and made a small collection of fossil plants. Some of these he took with himnbsp;on a visit to Europe and showed them to the eminent paleobotanist,nbsp;Prof. Oswald Heer, of Zurich. In his Geology of North America^ henbsp;introduces a translation of Professor Heer�s report upon this collection. It contains nothing additional to the forms described by Rogersnbsp;and Bunbury.

At the Philadelphia meeting of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, in February, 1878, Mr. Oswald J. Heinrich read an elaborate paper on the Mesozoic Formation in Virginia, which was publishednbsp;in the Transactions.'� He gives numerous sections in the principalnbsp;mines of the Richmond coal field, mentioning the occurrence ofnbsp;plants, and on page 264 he attempts an enumeration of the species,nbsp;basing it on determinations made for him by Prof. C. E. Hall, ofnbsp;the University of Pennsylvania, to whom the material collected wasnbsp;referred. The list is short, and the names the old erroneous ones ofnbsp;Brongniart, Bunbury, and Rogers.

Prof. William M. Fontaine commenced his important I�esearches in this field early in the seventies and contributed a preliminary paper*nbsp;in 1879. This paper is chiefly geological and covers a wide field, discussing the relations of the older to the younger Mesozoic, but it isnbsp;based largelyquot; on the evidence furnished by the flora, and that of thenbsp;Richmond coal field receives special treatment (pp. 37-39).

This paper was the natural forerunner of his Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia,^ with which we have already had much to do, and which isnbsp;unquestionably the most important contribution that has yet beennbsp;made to the flora of the American Trias. It forms one of thenbsp;smaller monographs of the United States Geological Survey, containing 144 pages of text and 54 plates. As stated by the author, �it isnbsp;based upon the study of a number of plants obtained after severalnbsp;years of diligent search in the oldei� Mesozoic strata of Virginia.�nbsp;The number of species, or rather of distinct plants, that are herenbsp;described and figured amounts to 45, which will be seen to be a largenbsp;increase over those hitherto known. Eight of these species werenbsp;already known from other localities under established names; 4 morenbsp;of this class are referred to difi'erent genera or species, making 12 notnbsp;confined to Virginia. Of the remaining 33, which are so confined, 9nbsp;have close affinities with species already described. It thus appearsnbsp;that considerably over half of the entire number are peculiar to thenbsp;locality and have no weight in determining its horizon.

� Geolog-y of North America, with Two Reports on the Prairies of Arkansas and Texas, the Rocky Mountains of New Mexico, and the Sierra Nevada of California, originally made for the United Statesnbsp;Government; by Jules Marcou; Zurich, 1858; p. 16.

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Notes on the Mesozoic of Virginia: Am. Jour. Sci., 3d series, Vol. XVII, January, 1879, pp. 25-55.

One of the most important purposes subserved by this work is that of correcting the determination of the forms that had previously beennbsp;described. Professor Fontaine undertook, in the preparation of thisnbsp;work, to make careful comparisons of all the forms in his collectionnbsp;with the figures that had already been published, and he went to greatnbsp;pains to indicate those species occurring in beds of similar age innbsp;Europe and other parts of the world which were capable of being compared with those of Virginia. This was possible in a considerablenbsp;number of cases, and we are, therefore, placed in a position to considernbsp;the age of this formation from the point of view of vegetable paleontology in its relation to older and better-established deposits. Jn viewnbsp;of its importance. Professor Fontaine�s work must, therefore, serve asnbsp;the basis, or general starting point, from which not only this discussion but the general discussion of the Triassic plants of North Americanbsp;will proceed.

Professor Fontaine did not restrict his investigations and comparisons to the Oolite of Yorkshire, as Rogers and Bunbury had done, but availed himself of all the extant literature upon the subject relating tonbsp;the fossil plants of all the formations of Europe and other parts ofnbsp;the world whose geological position is not far removed from that tonbsp;which the American beds had already been referred. The importantnbsp;researches of August Schenk upon the fossil flora of the Mesozoic ofnbsp;Bavaria, especially of Franconia, in the vicinity of Baireuth, previously known to him only imperfectly through Count von Miinster�snbsp;Beitrage and two papers by D. Brauns, had opened up a new andnbsp;important field and furnished a very much broader basis for the studynbsp;of the analogous floras the world over. Nathorst had also contributednbsp;in an important way to the study of the Rhetic flora of southernnbsp;Sweden. Heer had investigated the Oolitic floras of the Arctic regionsnbsp;and Siberia, and Feistmantel had published his exhaustive works onnbsp;the Gondwana system of India. All these, and other important works,nbsp;were consulted by Professor Fontaine, so that he was in position tonbsp;revise and correct the works of Rogers, Bunbury, Emmons, andnbsp;Hitchcock upon the fossil flora of the American Mesozoic.

It was thus found that the Virginia Mesozoic flora did not correspond with anything like the same completeness as had been supposed to the Oolite of Yorkshire. Many of the most important speciesnbsp;which had been depended upon to establish its Oolitic age were discovered to have been wrongly named and to belong to different generanbsp;from those to which they had been assigned.

This revision operated in two directions, viz: primarily, in showing that those who had regarded the Richmond coal field as Carboniferousnbsp;or Permian, or had supported their views upon the supposed discoveries in these fields of such Carboniferous plants as Calamites, Sigil-laria. and Lepidodendron, were mistaken in these determinations, and

that no such ancient forms exist in the Mesozoic formation; and, secondly, in showing that many of the species referred to the Yorkshire flora are not identical with those forms and are either new speciesnbsp;belonging to the same orders or genera or are species nearly or quitenbsp;identical with those of the Rhetic beds of Europe. So that while uponnbsp;the whole the revised flora indicates that these deposits are morenbsp;ancient than the Oolite of England, at the same time it does not indicate an age having anything like the antiquity of the true coal floras ofnbsp;this country and of Europe.

Forms supposed to belong to Calamites were shown to belong to Equisetum, having the broad trunks and great size of those Equise-tums which occur in the Trias. The supposed Sigillarias and Lepi-dodendra were shown to belong to the C3madace8e or Coniferie, probably to the genus Palissya, which is strictly Mesozoic. On the othernbsp;hand, the important Pecopteris whitbietisis and Neuropteris linnaem-folia^ supposed to be common to the Oolitic flora and that of Virginia,nbsp;are both shown to belong to the genus Acrostichites, which is Rhetic,nbsp;and the equally important Pecopteris hullatits, from which so much hadnbsp;been argued, is referred by Professor Fontaine to an entirely newnbsp;genus of his own, viz, Mertejisides, by which it loses altogether itsnbsp;diagnostic value. These are merely examples of the searching character of Professor Fontaine�s investigations and of the important alterations in the data for forming a conclusion with regard to the age ofnbsp;these deposits.

After describing the species of the Virginia flora. Professor Fontaine sets forth in a table of distribution the general elements of this flora as compared with those of other countries. Forty-two speciesnbsp;had been enumerated, of which 21, or just half, prove to be new tonbsp;science, or at least peculiar to Virginia. In the table appended tonbsp;this paper it will be shown that several of these have affinities withnbsp;other plants whose geological age is known, therefore are not withoutnbsp;diagnostic value from a geological standpoint. Professor Fontainenbsp;could find no forms identical with any that had hitherto been describednbsp;from anj' part of the Trias, but I of his species were allied to speciesnbsp;of the Trias. Only 2 of them were shown to be identical with anynbsp;plants of the Jurassic, and neither of these belong to the Oolite ofnbsp;Yorkshire, but there are 5 species related to Jurassic forms. Withnbsp;the Rhetic flora the affinities seem closer, 4 species having beennbsp;identified with Rhetic plants of Europe, and 8 others are shown to benbsp;closely related to such. Professor Fontaine�s table is carefulh^ discussed by him, each species being taken up and its geological bearingsnbsp;considered. Without following him through this discussion, we willnbsp;content ourselves by quoting a few of his concluding remarks:

It is clear then from these facts that we must consider this flora as not older than the Rhsetic. The only question is whether or not its strong Jurassic features ought to

cause us to regard it as at least Lower Liassic in age. I think that it is fully as much entitled to be regarded as of Liassic age as is the flora of the Rajamahal group ofnbsp;India. Feistmantel and Zigno think that the age of this group is that of the Lias.nbsp;Taking everything into consideration, the flora of the older Mesozoic of Virginia is,nbsp;of the European floras, nearest to that of Theta, near Baireuth, in Franconia (p. 96).

Some authors hold that the Rhsetic beds form the uppermost of the Triassic strata. Others think that they are transition beds, having more affinity with the Lower Lias.nbsp;The latter view will, I think, be justified by a study of the flora, and I have, in thisnbsp;memoir, assumed its correctness (p. 128).

This important work of Professor Fontaine�s especially attracted the attention of the late distinguished directe r of the Austrian Geological Survey, D. Stur, who had found at a place called Lunz, innbsp;Austria, a deposit yielding fossil plants having a very remarkablenbsp;resemblance to those of the Virginia flora. Unable to satisfy himselfnbsp;with suffleient certainty by the study of the figures and descriptionsnbsp;of Professor Fontaine, Director Stur made application to Professornbsp;Fontaine and received, through the intervention of the United Statesnbsp;Geological Survey, a good series of specimens of the Virginia fossils.nbsp;In the Proceedings of the Geological Survey of Austria, published innbsp;1888, Director Stur gave a brief account� of the results of his comparisons of the Virginia plants with those of Lunz. The general conclusion is that they are identical in age, many of the species being thenbsp;same. But Stur regards the Lunz flora as Keuper and not Ehetic,nbsp;and as nearly equivalent to that of Kaibl and Stuttgart. He hadnbsp;arrived at this conclusion by a preliminary study already given to thenbsp;flora of Lunz.^

This paper, as he admits, was only a Prodromus, and contains simply a list of the genera and species in systematic order, but no descriptions or figures. It bears date 1885, or two years later than Professor Fontaine�s monograph. Therefore it is obvious that all Stur could donbsp;under the recognized laws of nomenclature would be to accept Professor Fontaine�s species and genera in so far as they were new andnbsp;identical with those of Lunz; although, of course, he would be authorized to point out any error in determination tending to show that Professor Fontaine had erroneously identified any of his plants with thosenbsp;of other deposits in Europe or elsewhere, or to show that any of hisnbsp;new species were not such, but were identical with species alreadynbsp;described. We are therefore surprised to find that in a number ofnbsp;cases, as for example Speirocarpus, Heeria, etc., Stur created newnbsp;genera of his own, and undertook at a later date to substitute themnbsp;for the genera of Professor Fontaine. This, it is clear, can not benbsp;allowed by the laws of nomenclature. Pseudodanseopsis and Merten-sides must stand and the Lunz plants be placed in them.

^Die Liinzer- (Lettenkohlen-) Flora in den � Older Mesozoic Beds of the Coal Field of Eastern Virginia,� von D. Stur: Verhandl. k.- k. geol. Reiehsanstalt, Wien, Jahrg. 1888, pp. 203-217.

2 Die obertiiadische Flora der Limzer-Schichten und des bituminosen Schiefers von Kaibl, von D. Stur; Sitzungsber. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl., Vol. CXI, 1885, pp. 93-103.

As confirming, so far as it goes, the views of Star regarding the somewhat lower position of the Richmond coal field and that of Northnbsp;Carolina, may be fitly noted the discovery in the Lower Trias of thenbsp;Vosges (�Gres bigarr� de Saint-Germain pres Luxeuil�), by M. Des-pierres, of a specimen identified by Zeiller � with Professor Fontaine�snbsp;Acrostichites rhornMfoUus rarinervis. From this and other indications Zeiller is inclined to regard the American deposits as Triassicnbsp;rather than Rhetic. This opinion, after noting the views of Professornbsp;Heer contained in the letter to Mr. Marcou, already mentioned, henbsp;expresses in the following words:

Je serais, en r�sum�, tr�s dispos� S, accepter 1�assimilation de Heer de pr�f�rence a celle de M. Fontaine, c�est � dire que je placerais les couches en question dans lenbsp;trias sup�rieur plutot que dans le rh�tien.

This whole subject was discussed quite at length by Mr. Jules Marcou in 1890,^ and he takes occasion to go over the history of hisnbsp;own investigations along with those of others. Very little is addednbsp;to our knowledge of the subject, but a letter from Zeiller, which henbsp;inserts on page 172, contains his determinations of Mr. Marcou�s collection, sent in 1849 to the Jardin des Plantes, and which had lain therenbsp;during this long period without attention. It contained eight or tennbsp;species, none of which were new.

Some specimens of fossil wood were collected by Mr. W J McGee, near Taylorsville on the South Anna River in Hanover County, whonbsp;supposed them to belong to the Potomac formation, and they werenbsp;included in Dr. Knowlton�s paper on the Fossil Wood and Lignite ofnbsp;the Potomac Formation.^

As all the other specimens from that formation had proved to be of Sequoian type and been referred to the genus Cupressinoxylon, therenbsp;was a suspicion that these might represent an older formation. Inbsp;therefore decided to visit the locality at the first opportunity, whichnbsp;presented itself on the occasion of the return of our expedition, presently to be recounted, over the Triassic beds of Virginia in 1890. Onnbsp;June 18 of that year, accompanied by Professor Fontaine and Mr.nbsp;Charles S. Prosser, I examined the bed on the South Anna River andnbsp;made further collections of the wood. The Trias appeared at severalnbsp;points in that vicinity, sometimes in the form of red shales, and thenbsp;wood in question occurred in a superficial deposit, probably Lafayette,nbsp;immediately overlying the Trias. It could not have come from thenbsp;Potomac farther to the east, and had undoubtedly weathered out ofnbsp;the Trias.

^Sur la pr�sence dans le gr�s bigarr� des Vosges de VAcrosiichides rhombifolius Fontaine, par K. Zeiller: Bull. Soc. g�ol. de France, 3d series, Vol. XVI, 1888, pp. 693-699.

2 The Triassic flora of Richmond, Virginia: Am. Geologist, Voi. V, March, 1890, pp. 160-174.

fessor Fontaine, Mr. Charles S. Prosser, and rAyself over the Triassic formation in Virginia. After visiting the Seneca sandstones, andnbsp;tracing the approach of the Trias along the Monocacy Eiver to thenbsp;Potomac, we crossed the river at Point of Eocks and proceeded tonbsp;Leesburg, skirting the western margin of the belt which consistsnbsp;entirelj^ of conglomerates early called �Potomac marble,� but knownnbsp;locally only as �calico rock.� At Leesburg the trap appears not innbsp;the form of ridges as in New England and on the Hudson, but rathernbsp;as a bowlder formation covering the surface; nevertheless, alongnbsp;Goose Creek it is heavily bedded and extensivel}^ quarried, therenbsp;called �granite.� Near points of contact of the trap with the rednbsp;shales these latter become lighter colored and in a few places somewhat dark and carbonaceous. The nature of our expedition did notnbsp;allow us time to search in these darker shales for fossil plants, but itnbsp;is possible that such may occur and that future researches may revealnbsp;them. Several such localities were noted for this purpose. At Brents-ville heavy beds of sandstone of excellent quality for building purposes occur and promising quarries have been opened. Several ofnbsp;these were visited by us in conipany with Mr. J. L. Sprogle, thenbsp;general manager, who offered us special facilities for examining them.nbsp;In some respects this stone seems to excel that of the quarries innbsp;Maryland, but in all the Potomac beds the color is a more lively rednbsp;than in the Connecticut Valley. A short distance east of Brentsvillenbsp;we found in lighter shale a fossil plant, Cheirolepis Muensteri (Schenk)nbsp;Schimp. We also found near Weaversville specimens of an Estherianbsp;and scales of fishes. Near the Eappahannock and Eapidan rivers andnbsp;southward as far as Orange, notably at Culpeper, a marked differencenbsp;occurs in the conglomerate from what we find at Point of Eocks andnbsp;Leesburg, the material cemented in the sandstone consisting of bowlders of considerable size. We named this the Culpeper conglomerate.nbsp;It is very similar to what may be seen in the Connecticut Valley andnbsp;also in the vicinity of New Haven, being the same noted by Professornbsp;Dana on the east side of Pond Eidge. Professor Fontaine and myselfnbsp;found this conglomerate at a number of points in the Connecticutnbsp;Valley.

On this excursion we traced the Trias to Barboursville, where Professor Eogers supposed it to end, and where, in fact, it does disappear; but proceeding thence to Charlottesville we were surprised to find itnbsp;in the valley of the Eivanna, only a short distance from that place,nbsp;and a few miles north of Monticello. From Charlottesville we proceeded to the coal field, striking it at Manakin or Dover Mines. Wenbsp;visited Carbon Hill and all the mines on the left bank of the James;nbsp;crossed at Boscabell�s ferry and proceeded to Midlothian and Clovernbsp;Hill, examining with minuteness the material thrown out at all thenbsp;shafts in this region. The most promising places for fossil plants in

that part of the field were the Gowrie shaft and the new Stonehenge shaft, near Midlothian, and the Bright Hope and Raccoon shafts atnbsp;Clover Hill. Nevertheless, many other interesting places were noted,nbsp;and in the following September these were all visited by Professornbsp;Fontaine and collections made.

In the course of the more recent extended investigations that have been made in the Richmond coal field by Prof. N. S. Shaler and hisnbsp;field parties,' Mr. J. B. Woodworth, in 1896, made a small collectionnbsp;of fossil wood in Chesterfield County, at three localities given as nearnbsp;Skinquarter Station, near Otterdale, and south of Moseley J unction,nbsp;at somewhat different horizons. This material was submitted to Dr.nbsp;F. H. Knowlton for determination, and his results were published asnbsp;an appendix to Professor Shaler�s paper. ^ Dr. Knowlton distinguishednbsp;two species of Araucarioxylon, A. virginianum and a new speciesnbsp;which he names A. Woodwoi'-thi, both of which are fully described andnbsp;illustrated. It will be noted that the first of these species is the samenbsp;as that from Taylorsville in Hanover County (see supra, p. 264). Thenbsp;other species is closely allied to A. arizonicum of the West (see infra,nbsp;pp. 273, 319).

Our knowledge of the existence of a coal basin in North Carolina dates back to a very remote period, and the occurrence of vegetablenbsp;remains in this region was known almost as early as in any of thenbsp;others considered.

Dr. Ebenezer Emmons, in his first report upon the geology of North Carolina,� in speaking of the coal fields of that State, mentionednbsp;(page 142) the occurrence of vegetable remains. He says:

The vegetables are few in number, and differ from those of the coal rocks of Pennsylvania or the flora of the Carboniferous system. An Equisetites differing from E. conimunia is the only one of this genus I have seen. A Lycopodites, and other alliednbsp;forms, are all I have yet found, except a naked and rather spinous vegetable, whichnbsp;is unknown in the Carboniferous rocks. It is a cellular cryptogamous plant. Thisnbsp;is very common and abundant at Madison, and one or two layers of slate are coverednbsp;with it at Evans Mills. The roots of vegetables, in the fire clay, are thin, narrow,nbsp;ribbon-like tissues, and have lost their vegetable structure. Their thinness and compressibility show, however, that the roots were spongy, of a loose texture, and werenbsp;�quatic.�

Later on in the same report, speaking of the Dan River coal measures (p. 147), he says:

Immediately above this bed of brecciated conglomerate there is one of the finest exhibitions of an ancient forest in this country. It consists partly of roots of trees

1 Geology of the Richmond Basin, Virginia, by N. S. Shaler and J. B. Woodworth: Nineteenth Ann. Rept. �. S. Geol. Survey, Pt. II, 1899, pp. 385-519.

^Report on some fossil wood from the Richmond Basin, Virginia, by P. H. Knowlton: Op. clt., pp. 516-519, pl.lii.

3 Executive Document No. 13, Report of Professor Emmons on his Geological Survey of North Carolina, Raleigh, 1852.

changed into lignite, and partly of perfectly silicified trunks of trees, exceeding two feet in diameter. The soil in which the majority of these trees grew is still concealed. Segments of their trunks stand out of the soft rock, inclining at an angle tonbsp;the horizon, but lean in a direction contrary to the dip of the rock. A road cutsnbsp;through the strata in which the forest grew. All that remains of it are the trunks;nbsp;it was impossible to find a leaf or stem of herbage or fruit. The softer and morenbsp;perishable parts and organs are destroyed by unknown agencies. Perhaps some fortunate blow of the hammer may bring to light the leaves and fruit. The structurenbsp;of these trunks prove them to belong to the natural family of Coniferse, or the familynbsp;to which the pines, spruces, and hemlocks belong.

The trees extend for half a mile or more, and no one, on seeing the number, can doubt that here grew a forest when the rocks were forming. Similar trunks havenbsp;been found at Madison, and pieces of trunks occur upon Deep River, near Evans�snbsp;bridge, and another forest of the same character upon Drowning Creek, in Richmondnbsp;County. They occupy the same position in the series.

We next find a casual mention by Professor Rogers in the Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History for January 4, 1854/ that he had found in the summer of 1850 in the coal rocks of Deepnbsp;River, North Carolina, several of the same plants which he was describing from Virginia. Among the plants mentioned as having been seennbsp;there by him were Equisetum colmmiare^ a Zamites, and a plumosenbsp;plant referred to Lycopodites, strongly resembling L. WilUamsonis ofnbsp;the Yorkshire coast.

At the Albany meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1856, Dr. Ebenezer Emmons read a paper entitled: Permian and Triassic Systems of North Carolina. This paper wasnbsp;published only by title in the Proceedings of the Association, but anbsp;brief abstract of it occurs in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal for 1857,^ in which, in addition to animal remains, he mentions thenbsp;occurrence in the North Carolina deposits, regarded by him as Keuper,nbsp;of a variety of plants, among which he enumerates some belonging tonbsp;the Cycadacese, a Voltzia, and also a supposed Walchia.

The same year (1856) appeared Dr. Emmons�s Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, which contains the first important mention of the fossil plants of the North Carolina basin. In thisnbsp;report Dr. Emmons, besides giving the most exhaustive geologicalnbsp;account of the North Carolina deposits that had thus far been made,nbsp;paid special attention to both the vegetable and animal remains. Thenbsp;former he supposed to occur in two somewhat distinct formations, viz,nbsp;the so-called Permian and the Trias. His Permian deposits holdingnbsp;vegetable remains occur along the Deep River at Haywood in Chathamnbsp;County, near Wadesboro in Anson, and also some 15 miles southwest of Troy in Montgomery. He mentions the remains of petrifiednbsp;and silicified wood, and seems to regard these as the � most importantnbsp;vegetable remains � that are found at all the above-mentioned localities;nbsp;also at Jones Falls, and in the Miocene of Wayne County, where they

appear to have been washed out of the so-called Permian and stranded on the surface. This silicitied wood may be the same as that which hadnbsp;several times previously been referred to/ but these previously mentioned fragments occurred along the Neuse River, and the lignitesnbsp;described in the second paper mentioned agree quite well with thosenbsp;found in the Potomac formation of Virginia. The vegetable impressions occur chiefly in the deep coal shaft at Egypt, on Deep River; alsonbsp;at Evans Bridge, and on the Dan River at Madison, Stokes County.nbsp;Among them he enumerates several fucoids, referred to Chondrites,nbsp;besides vascular cryptogams, such as Equisetum, ferns, and some formsnbsp;referred to the Lycopodiacese. The treatment of these plants occursnbsp;in Chapter XXXIX, pp. 283-293, pi. i-iii.

A much larger number of plant forms are described by Dr. Emmons from the overlying Trias, which he identifies with the Keuper ofnbsp;Europe, and regards as equivalent to the coal shale of the Thiiringer-wald. These also occur, for the most part, on Deep River, principallynbsp;at Jones Falls, which is also called Lockville; also in the blue slate atnbsp;Ellingtons, and in the soft reddish marls near Haywood. Thesenbsp;plants include a number of ferns, Cycadacese, Lycopodiacese, Coniferse,nbsp;and Equisetacese.

It is proper to remark that recent determinations of these various forms have changed the views expressed by Dr. Emmons in regard tonbsp;their nature and systematic position, and also that Professor Fontainenbsp;does not see any reason for considering the so-called Permian formsnbsp;as indicating a distinct age from those of the Trias.

To these vegetable remains are devoted four double plates of very well-drawn and well-printed figures.

A notice of Professor Emmons�s North Carolina Report, relating to the Trias, which appeared in the American Journal of Science fornbsp;November, 1857,� signed by the initials C. D., which are understoodnbsp;to have been those of Professor C. Dewey, is chiefly important in containing what purports to be a translation of a letter from Prof. Oswald-Heer, who had made a somewhat careful study of Dr. Emmons�s figures, and, as it would seem, of specimens which had been shown himnbsp;by Mr. Jules Marcou, and the latter gentleman states� that the letternbsp;itself was originally addressed to him and was subsequently submittednbsp;to Dr. Emmons, who placed it in the hands of Professor Dewey. Itnbsp;is the same letter to which reference has already been made, a translation of which appeared in Mr. Marcou�s Geology of North America,nbsp;at page 16; but the two translations difl'er in some rather importantnbsp;respects.

In Part VI of his American Geology, Chapters VH and XV, Dr. Emmons has reproduced, almost without change, this discussion of

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;See mention by Olmsted in Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. V, 1822, p. 261, and Vpl. XIV, 1828, p. 250.

the fossil flora of the Carolina Trias, making, however, a few additions and corrections. The illustrations are somewhat superior to those ofnbsp;the former work, and a considerable number were added. This volumenbsp;bears date 1857.

Nothing further was done with this North Carolina flora until Professor Fontaine undertook, in his Older Mesozoic Flora, 1883, a careful revision of Dr. Emmons�s work as published in his American Geology.nbsp;This forms Part III of that important monograph, and is, as maj^ wellnbsp;be judged, a very welcome contribution to this general subject, bringing the determinations down carefully to date and eliminating thenbsp;greater part of Dr. Emmons�s mistakes. It proved conclusively thatnbsp;the North Carolina basin is very closely related to that of Virginia,nbsp;since of the 40 species enumerated in the North Carolina flora, 9 onlynbsp;are peculiar to that State, while 16 occur in Virginia. Six of hisnbsp;plates are devoted to reproductions of Dr. Emmons�s figures, without,nbsp;it must be confessed, any artistic improvement in them; but thisnbsp;seemed necessary in order to place the discussion in a compact formnbsp;and in a clear light.

Most of Emmons�s plants come from above the horizon of the Mesozoic coal beds of North Carolina; hence, if this coal be on the same horizon as the Virginia Mesozoic coal, as it probably is, most of the North Carolina plants must come somewhatnbsp;higher up in the series of older Mesozoic strata than those from Virginia. Nearly allnbsp;of the latter come from the beds immediately associated with the Mesozoic coal ofnbsp;Virginia (p. 97).

Referring to the bituminous shale groups, which Dr. Emmons regarded as Permian, he says :

This bituminous shale group comes some distance above the base of the North Carolina Mesozoic series of strata, and, as stated, most probably stands on the horizonnbsp;of the strata yielding most of the Virginia plants (p. 98).

It is not necessary to dwell upon the character of the strata of the two North Carolina areas. It is evident that they have a close resemblance to each other andnbsp;to the Mesozoic beds of Virginia. The physical and stratigraphical resemblancesnbsp;are sufficient, without the evidence of the plants, to indicate that the North Carolinanbsp;and the Virginia Mesozoic strata are of the same age, and that they were formednbsp;under similar conditions.

On pages 122 and 123 he gives a table of distribution similar to that given for the Virginia flora. This table certainly shows a remarkablenbsp;similarity between the two floras. For example, only 9 species ofnbsp;the North Carolina plants are peculiar to that State, while 15 occurnbsp;also in the Virginia flora, and one other, Lonchopteris ohlonga, isnbsp;closely allied to L. virginiensis. None of these forms occur in thenbsp;Trias of any other country, nor are any allied to any Triassic plants.nbsp;Two species occur in the Jurassic of other parts of the world, and 6

are allied to Jurassic species, but when we come to the Rhetic we find 7 identical with, and 8 others closely related to, typical Rhetic forms.nbsp;The evidence of Rhetic age is therefore very strong. The results ofnbsp;this table are then analyzed and thoroughl}^ discussed, and from thenbsp;data here presented and from other sources he arrives at the followingnbsp;general conclusion :

European authors, and especially Schimper, often call attention to the strong resemblance between the Ehsetic and Lower Jurassic floras, the likeness to the floranbsp;of the Lower Oolite of England being especially striking. In accordance with thisnbsp;fact, the presence of a marked .Jurassic element in the flora of these Mesozoic beds,nbsp;both in North Carolina and Virginia, is of itself an evidence that they can not benbsp;older than Rhaetic. We are, then, I think, entitled to consider that the older Mesozoicnbsp;flora of North Carolina and Virginia is most probably Rhsetic in age, and certainlynbsp;not older (p. 128).

The letter of M. R. Zeiller to Mr. Jules Marcou, published in the paper to which reference was made (supra, p. 264), contains a remarknbsp;which it is appropriate to quote here in connection with Dr. Emmons�snbsp;determinations and Professor Fontaine�s conclusions drawn from thenbsp;original figures. M. Zeiller says:

In studying the excellent figures of Emmons, very roughly reproduced by Rontaine, I have been led to contest several of the attributions and determinations of the latter,nbsp;more especially about the Albertia, which Fontaine wants to make an Otozamites.nbsp;The Albertia latifolia of Emmons is certainly an Albertia related to both Alb. laiifolianbsp;and Alb. Brauni; and until now all the Albertise have been found in Europe in thenbsp;Buntersandstein or Lower Trias.'

It is interesting to know that the original specimen was found in the collection at Williamstown, redescribed and refigured by Professornbsp;Fontaine, who adheres to his formerly expressed opinion that the plantnbsp;�is certainly not an Albertia,� comparing it with Otozamites Beaniinbsp;(L. and H.) Brongn. (see infra, pp. 298, 299, PI. XLII, Figs. 5, 6).

Professor Fontaine stated in the beginning of this revision^ that on inquiry he had learned �that Dr. Emmons�s collections of plantsnbsp;were destroyed during the late war,� and it was supposed that none ofnbsp;his specimens were in existence, but in the spring of 1890 a collection,nbsp;long ago received by the Smithsonian Jnstitution from Mr. Isaac Lea,nbsp;of Philadelphia, consisting chiefly of shells, was examined by Prof.nbsp;William H. Dali and found to contain a few fossil plants, which werenbsp;turned over by him to the department of fossil plants of the Nationalnbsp;Museum, and thus came into my hands. Among these plants, most ofnbsp;which were from the Newcastle coal fields of England, were severalnbsp;specimens that Dr. Emmons had sent to Mr. Lea from North Carolina,nbsp;and with them was a letter from the former to the latter, dated July 12,nbsp;1856, mentioning these plants, and setting forth some of the conclusions to which a study of the coal fields of the State had led him. Thenbsp;plants bore provisional names, but it was thought best that they be

sent to Professor Fontaine for his inspection. This was done, and I introduce here his report upon them, as some of the results are important, and no better opportunity may present itself foi� their publication:

Sir: I have examined the fossil plants of the Older Mesozoic (Trias) of North Carolina, which were formerly sent by Dr. Emmons to Dr. Isaac Lea, and which are now in possession of the United States National Museum.

Nos. 1 and 2 are fruiting forms of Asterocarpus virginiensis ohtusilohus. This species, before the discovery of this specimen, had been known only from the locality Clovernbsp;Hill in the Eichmond coal field. Emmons does not appear to have either figured ornbsp;described it among the forms given in his American Geology. Possibly he may havenbsp;identified it with his Pecopleris falmtus=Laccopleris Emmonsi.

No. 3. This is a cast of a fucoid which is too imperfect to be determined. There are in the collection several other specimens showing vague imprints of fucoids. Theynbsp;are too imperfect to call for further notice.

Nos. 4 and 5. These specimens are Ctenophyllum Braunianum yax. fi G�pp., or the form with shorter leaflets. This plant is figured and described in Emmons�s American Geology as Pterozamites ohtusifoliUs. From an inspection of the figures, I camenbsp;some time ago to the conclusion that no good reason existed for separating this plantnbsp;from G�ppert�s variety [i of Ctenophyllum Braunianum. An examination of the plantnbsp;itself confirms the conclusion. Emmons seems at first to have identified this speciesnbsp;with Rogers� s Zamites obiusifolius, and the labels accompanying these specimens bearnbsp;this name. Later he regarded it as Pterozamites.

No. 6. This is marked by Emmons as coming from the coal shale, in which the fossil plants do not seem to be so abundant and in such variety as in the shales muchnbsp;higher up. The label with this specimen gives the name Gymnocaulus altematus, butnbsp;the impression does not show any significant character. It looks more like a rootnbsp;than anything else.

No. 7. As indicated by the label accompanying this specimen, Emmons regarded it as a Lepacyclotes, but it is too imperfect to show anything definite.

No. 8. This is an Equisetum, an imprint of the outer portion, but it is too indefinite to permit identification. It is most probably E. Rogersii.

Nos. 9, 10, and 11. Thes� specimens are all too imperfect to permit their identification with certainty.

No. 12. This is a fine specimen, called by Emmons Walchia diffums. With this name he gives a figure of the plant in his American Geology, pi. iii, fig. 2. From an examination of this figure, no specimens of the plant being accessible to me, I came withnbsp;doubt to the conclusion (see Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, p. 106) that the plantnbsp;is a Palissya. An examination, however, of a specimen of this form shows that it isnbsp;not a Palissya, and also that it is not a Walchia. It requires a study of more thannbsp;one specimen of the plant satisfactorily to make out its character, for although a finenbsp;specimen, it does not show distinctly some features. All that can now be said of itnbsp;is that it is probably a new genus, in foliage at east, intermediate between Cheirolepis

and Pachyphyllum, standing nearer the former. As this single specimen does not suffice to establish a new genus, it is perhaps best provisionally to regard the plantnbsp;as a Cheirolepis. In that case it might be called Cheirolepis diffusa.

In this connection it is proper to state that although Emmons says that he made a rich collection of the North Carolina Older Mesozoic fossil plants, I know of the existence of no collection of these plants available for study.

Accompanying these plants of Dr. Lea there are several fine specimens of ganoid fishes obtained by Emmons from the shales associated with the coal of North Carolina. They are worthy of careful study.

Dl'. F. H. Knowlton received from Prof. I. C. Russell some pieces of fossil wood from the Trias of North Carolina, from which he made sixnbsp;slides. These have not thus far been figured, but after an examination of the slides Dr. Knowlton was able to make to Professor Russellnbsp;the following statement, which the latter published in his Correlationnbsp;Paper on the Newark System.^ At my request Dr. Knowlton hasnbsp;kindly drawn the figures and furnished the following descriptivenbsp;notes:

DESCRIPTION OF A SMALL COLLECTION OF FOSSIL WOOD FROM THE TRIASSIC AREA OF NORTH CAROLINA.

In 1885 Prof. I. C. Russell, then of the United States Geological Survey, submitted to me a small collection of fossil wood made bynbsp;himself in the Triassic area of North Carolina. He requested a briefnbsp;report on this material, which 1 made, and which h� published in hisnbsp;Newark System^ in 1892. Recently Professor Ward, who is engagednbsp;on a systematic review of the fossil plants of the Triassic of this country, has asked for a more detailed description of this wood for use innbsp;his report. The following notes are the result of this stud}!.

This collection consists of about a dozen specimens, representing the following localities: Triassic strata between Walnut Cove andnbsp;Germantown; 1 mile west of Polkton; and Lockville, all in Northnbsp;Carolina. None of the material is well preserved, the structure havingnbsp;suffered greatly in the process of fossilization. Six of the best-preserved pieces were selected and thin sections cut from them. Of these,nbsp;three proved to have been so poorl}! preserved as to be worthless fornbsp;purposes of study, and the results obtained are therefore based on thenbsp;three remaining pieces.

I stated in my brief report to Professor RusselP that, with the possible exception of one piece, I was able to identify them with Araitcarioxy-lon arizonicum Knowlton,^ a species described from the Shinarump group of Arizona and New Mexico, and since detected, or at most

' Correlation papers�The Newark system: Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 85, 1892, p. 29. sproc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XI, 1888, p. 3, pi. i, figs. 1-5.

Rnxiu I .gain looked o�ci- the slides in �quot;quot;��'�,7'��a a numbei- of pieces of wood from the Bichmondnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

.-epoft of which is given in the Nineteenth Annual. Am� � th� IBch mond Basin specimens 1 found one having the same structure as fto

material from North Carolina confirms this view, and it is li6rGnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;� �nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;3

In'l8891 described, under the name of a piece of fossil wood that was supposed to have comenbsp;formation at Taylorsville, Virginia. Subsequen inbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;where

folloA^g is a brief discussion of the two species based on the ^oitR Carolina material;

As may be seen in comparing the SgilTcs here accompanying the original description of A.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;� froni'New

Mexico and Arizona is very close indeed. The annnal �S faint and is detected with difficulty. It consists of �quot;'Tnbsp;rows of smaller, thicker-walled cells, ��f �'''VX , ftenbsp;eiinally thick-willed from both localities. The wood cells in the

in a single series, or rarely in two series. In the Richmond Basin specimen there is one, rarely two, and very rarely three series. When in a single row they are approximately circular; when in two or threenbsp;rows they are very slightlj' compressed and hexagonal.

In tangential section the ends of the medullary rays are of course shown. They are seen to be composed of from 1 to about 12 superimposed cells. The wood cells as seen in this section are without thenbsp;bordered pits that form so important a character in A. arizonicum,.

As I took occasion to say in my repoit on the Richmond Basin material, this species is very closely allied to, if not indeed identicalnbsp;with, Ar'aucarioxylon arizonicum., differing in having a less number ofnbsp;cells in each medullary raj', and particularly in the absence of borderednbsp;pits in the tangential walls of the wood cells. These are, however, notnbsp;important differences, and a larger series of specimens might show thenbsp;breaking down of this character, but for the present, at least, it maj'nbsp;be regarded as distinct.

Locality.�Road between Walnut Cove and Gierman town, North Carolina; collected by I. C. Russell, August 21, 1885. Near Lock-ville, North Carolina, collected by I. C. Russell, July 25, 1885.

1889. Araucarioxylon virginianum Kn.: Bull IT. S. Geol. Survey, No. 56, p. 50, pi. vii, figs. 2-5.

1899. Araucarioxylon virginianum Kn.: Nineteenth Ann. Rept. �. S. Geol. Survey, Pt. II, p. 516, pi. Hi, figs. 7-10.

As stated above, this species was described from what was thought at the time to be Potomac strata, but which later investigation hasnbsp;shown to be undoubted Triassic. It was also detected in the Richmondnbsp;Basin, as mentioned in my report on that material. Its presence isnbsp;now demonstrated in the Triassic area of North Carolina.

On comparing the drawings here given with the original figures, it will be seen that the agreement is very close indeed. The medullary rays have about the same number of cells and the same characters. The pits on the radial walls of the wood cells are identical.nbsp;V^hen the pits are in a single row they are less evidently hexagonal,nbsp;but when in two rows they are distinctly so. I therefore do not hesitate to refer the specimen to this species.

Locality.�Lockville, North Carolina; collected by I. C. Russell, July 25, 1885.

On the evening of March 28, 1894, at the close of a meeting of the Geological Society of Washington, before which I had read a paper on

The Potomac Formation, Dr. T. Nelson Dale, of Williams College, WiT liamstown, Massachusetts, approached me and asked if I was also interested in the flora of the Trias. When I informed him that I had beennbsp;studying it for the last five years and had prepared an extended papernbsp;on it which I hoped sometime to publish, he volunteered the startlingnbsp;information that all of Dr. Ebenezer Emmons�s types from the Northnbsp;Carolina coalfields were deposited at Williams College and were undernbsp;fiis charge.

As it had been so frequently and confidently stated that these t3rpes were lost or destroyed during the war, this piece of news came as anbsp;revelation. I asked him if it would be possible to obtain access tonbsp;them in order to have them reexamined by Professor i ontaine and anbsp;final report published upon them, and he said that so far as his authoi-ity went he would be glad to cooperate in securing this result.nbsp;He said he had compared a number of them with the published figures and was certain that a portion at least of the type specimensnbsp;were in the collection, and he presumed all. Indeed, he thought therenbsp;was considerable material that had not been published.

I immediately wrote to Professor Fontaine and asked him if he would like to undertake to overhaul the collection and prepare anbsp;report. His interest was of course great and he consented to do so.nbsp;He corresponded directly with Dr. Dale, and after some delaj^ thenbsp;desii'ed result was brought about. In a letter to Professor Fontaine,nbsp;dated May 10, 1894, Dr. Dale says;

Igt;BAH Sir: I have at last found time to look over Emmons�s fossil plants. The specimens from which the figures reproduced by you in your monograph on the Oldernbsp;Mesozoic were drawn are mostly here. I have identified the following.

Your pi. 48, figs. 6 and 8 (the latter slightly damaged, the former, 2 specimens), hi- 49, fig. 6.

Also the following; Gycadites longifolius, Calamites, Lepacyclotes with Walchia diffusus, Walchia variabilis. A Sphenopteris egyptiaca better than pi. 48, fig. 8.

Besides these there is a drawer 30 by 16 by 2i inches, full of smaller specimens, many of them with his labels still attached.

Should you chance to be in New England sometime I would be pleased to give you every facility for studying the specimens, but I ought to be advised beforehandnbsp;lest I should chance to be out of town.

The pi'essure of other work, however, delayed attention to this impoi -tant matter for a period of over three years. I had become 8peciall3 interested in the subject of C3mads, and as several supposed cv^cads hadnbsp;been reported from the North Carolina coal fields b3' Dr. Emmons, I

decided to visit Williams College and endeavor to find the types of his figures of these. I accordingly arranged with Dr. Dale to meet himnbsp;there on July 17, 1897, and look at the collection and try to hunt upnbsp;certain specimens. Every facilit}^ for this was placed at my disposal.nbsp;I found two of the supposed cycadean trunks and took detailed notesnbsp;upon them. One of those figured could not be found. Anothernbsp;proved to be merely an impression, but evidently that of a cycadeannbsp;trunk. It is tolerably clear and is described and figured below withnbsp;the specific name given to it by Professor Fontaine. Dr. Emmonsnbsp;practically recognized it as a Cj^cadeoidea (see infra, p. 302, PI. XLllI,nbsp;Fig. 3). Another specimen was found which was never figured. It isnbsp;a disk of a small trunk, faintly showing scars around the edge. Asnbsp;Professor Fontaine has not in the report to follow dealt with thisnbsp;specimen, the following note written with the specimen before menbsp;ma}^ as well be recorded:

This is a thin segment of a small trunk. It consists of a gray coarse sandstone and is mainly a mere cast, but around the edge is anbsp;thin layer of a finer material on which there are faint indications ofnbsp;scars. The cross section is elliptical, 9 by 11 cm. The thicknessnbsp;(length of the trunk) is from 2 to 3 cm. On one side is a label withnbsp;the words �Zamites, Stem of Cycad,� probably in Dr. Emmons�snbsp;handwriting.

Some time afterwards, at my request. Dr. Dale brought this specimen to Washington, and, through thei kindness of Professor Diller, the most promising portions were ground slightly in the hope thatnbsp;something of the internal structure might be revealed, but it provednbsp;to be only a sandstone cast, all within being wholly structureless.nbsp;Professor Fontaine, while engaged in working up this collection, asnbsp;presently to be mentioned, examined this specimen, and in a letter tonbsp;me dated August 5,1898, he says;

The disk of sandstone which you examined to see if it might be a cycad trunk, seems to be a cross section of a cylindrical cast of an Equisetum.

A year later arrangements were made for working up the collection, and on August 3, 1898, Professor Fontaine went to Williams Collegenbsp;and made an exhaustive study of the material, occupying over twonbsp;weeks. He described all the species, but did not then figure them,nbsp;making an arrangement with Dr. Dale to have the types that henbsp;selected to be figured sent to the University of Virginia and to thenbsp;United States Geological Survey, Division of Illustrations, where thenbsp;drawings could be made with all necessary care. Professor Fontainenbsp;elaborated his notes and completed his report in Januar}^, 1899, and thenbsp;types not figured by him were drawn in the Division of Illustrationsnbsp;during the winter and spring. They were returned to Williams College in June.

a most important consummation and sheds a flood o new ig whole subject of the Older Mesozoic flora of Amerma.nbsp;results, it has the effect of rescuing from an oh i\ lous sj - datino-uncertainty a number of Dr. Emmons�s names, some of them danbsp;back to bis North Carolina report of 1856. In thenbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.

species in Professor Fontaine�s descriptive papei t a o nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,

Dr. Emmons�s names by preserving them as having piioii j � others. In a few cases these old species of Dr. Emmonsnbsp;in the York deposits as made known by Mr. ^\anner and ��bodmdnbsp;an earlier part of this paper. In such cases, o avoi un .nbsp;repetition, the synonymy is given there and only a reference to it

J. A. Holmes, State geologist of North Carolina, has recently found a few more of Dr. Emmons�s Triassic plants, ^hich he e^i tonbsp;Professor Fontaine. The latter informs me that there is noth �

111? EBENEZEE EMMONS �ROM THE OLDER notes on fossil plants COLLECTED BA DR- EBE.NEZ

Dr. Ebenezer Emmons, when State geologist of North Carolina collected a number of fossil plants in the Older Mesozom bed of thatnbsp;State. In Pt. VI of his American Geology, published in 185 ^ henbsp;gave descriptions and figures of them. At anbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.j tPe

writer made collections of fossil plants from beds o aijaieiith tlm same age in Virginia. Descriptions and figures ofnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;YoP YI.

lished as a Monograph of the United ^^'^^^^^^^j^^^Y�-o-inia fossils with As it was apparent from a compaiison of � , . � ,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;there

the figure, and V-riptiou, given by Emmon, ot h� was much resemblance in a number of cases it was nec^ Sa ^nbsp;satisfactory determination to examine Emmons s specimen..nbsp;ilt;lentified some of his forms with Virginia plants.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;J.

sible that the number of plants known to him from was much smaller than that collected by the writer.nbsp;to compare this larger collection with his own e wou ? ^eVies ofnbsp;made additional identifications. Besides, the moienbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;slants

of the forms described in Pt. VI of the American Geology, but without success. Neither the types nor any of the fossil-plant material collected by Emmons could be found. That being the case, the figuresnbsp;given by Emmons were the sole dependence for comparison, and undernbsp;the circumstances they could not be very satisfactory. It was thoughtnbsp;best, then, to reproduce these figures in Monograph United Statesnbsp;Geological Survey, Vol. VI, giving Emmons�s descriptions, and tonbsp;accompany them with such criticisms as would be suggested by thenbsp;Virginia specimens. Even from the figures it could be seen that therenbsp;was a larger number of plants common to the two States than Emmonsnbsp;had noticed. This review was embodied in the Monograph.

Recently, Prof. T. Nelson Dale, in examining the unsorted and unclassified fossils in the collections of Williams College, Massachusetts, found fossil plants which he recognized as having been collected bynbsp;Emmons. This led him to think that probably the long-lost collectionnbsp;might be found to have been placed in Williams College, and he sonbsp;stated to Professor Ward. Professor Ward, knowing its importance,nbsp;visited Williams College, and after an examination of the specimensnbsp;was convinced that they formed all that remained of Emmons�s collection.

Dr. Dale only recently took charge of the collections of fo.ssils in Williams College. He found a large mass of heterogeneous andnbsp;unsorted material, and going over this for the purpose of labeling thenbsp;specimens and placing them in cases for preservation, he found thenbsp;fossils above alluded to. Thei^ were scattered among animal fossilsnbsp;and other specimens. No attempt had been made to keep them togethernbsp;and credit them to Dr. Emmons. A considerable number of the specimens were evidently as Emmons had packed them in collecting, andnbsp;they were accompanied by his field labels, bearing the names of thenbsp;plants and the localities yielding them. There is no record as to hownbsp;these fossils came into the possession of Williams College, and no onenbsp;prior to Dr. Dale�s discovery knew of their existence. It is probablenbsp;that they were presented to the college by Dr. Emmons after the publication of the descriptions, or by Mrs. Emmons after his death.

The collection made by Dr. Emmons will in all probability stand as the most complete one of the plant fossils of the Older Mesozoic ofnbsp;North Carolina. He made it under exceptionally favorable circumstances, which will most probably never be met with again. Thenbsp;rocks closely associated with the coal of North Carolina are the onlynbsp;ones that in future will probably be opened up and afford opportunitynbsp;for the collection of plant fossils. If we may judge from Emmons�snbsp;experience, they, unlike those similarly placed in Virginia, are verynbsp;poor in plant fossils. Emmons found nearl}^ all his specimens, and allnbsp;his best-preserved and most interesting plants, in measures that havenbsp;been proved to be without workable coal, and which occur, according tonbsp;him. many hundred feet above the workable coal. It is not probable

that in future these strata will be extensively explored. The case, however, was quite different when Emmons was State geologist.nbsp;There was at one time great activity in the search for coal. The uppernbsp;portion of the Older Mesozoic had not then been shown to be withoutnbsp;workable coal. In a number of places these beds contain thin seamsnbsp;of coal, enough to have caused trial pits to be sunk. A great many ofnbsp;these pits were opened, and in a number of cases they afforded well-preserved plants. Emmons�s position as State geologist gave himnbsp;unusual opportunities both for hearing of the plants and for collectingnbsp;them. Fortunately he appreciated the importance of taking advantage of them.

With the passing awav of the inducement to search for coal in the upper measures all opportunity for collecting in them ceased. Thenbsp;shallow pits soon filled up and all trace of them disappeared, so thatnbsp;in time no one even remembered them. 1 had occasion to note thesenbsp;pits. When it proved impossible to find in North Carolina any tracenbsp;of Emmons�s collection it was thought advisable to visit the localitiesnbsp;mentioned by him as giving him his most abundant and best fossils.nbsp;This was done, and the outcome was complete failure to find Emmons�snbsp;localities or any others. No one remembered them. The exposuresnbsp;of rocks are few and poor and showed no recognizable plants. It wasnbsp;evident that Emmons owed his success in collecting plants to thenbsp;exceptional conditions mentioned above, under which he operated.

The Emmons plants found in the Williams College collections being the best representatives of the Older Mesozoic flora of North Caio-lina. Professor Ward requested me to study them. I visited Williamsnbsp;College in the summer of 1898 and made a careful examination of thenbsp;North Carolina material. It is the object of this paper to give thenbsp;results obtained.

In this material most of the plants figured and described by Dr. Emmons were found. There are, besides the type specimens, manynbsp;duplicates of some of the forms and some that were not given in thenbsp;published figures and descriptions.

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SPECIES.

Subkingdom PTERIDOPHYTA (Ferns and Fern Allies).

Class FILICALES.

Family FILICES (Ferns).

PI. xxxvin, Fig. 1.

1857. Sphenopieris egyptiaca Emin.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 36, figs. 8 and 9 on p. 37.

1885. Acrodichites egyptiacus (Emm.) Font.: Older Mes. FI. Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 99, pi. xlviii, tigs. 8, 8a.

Emmons, in American Geology, Pt. VI, pp. 36-37, figs. 8 and 9, gives a description of a fine fern, which he names Sphenopieris egyptiaca.nbsp;He says it is found only in the coal-bearing portions of the Northnbsp;Carolina Mesozoic. It is the finest of the few plants that this portionnbsp;of the measures has yielded. Emmons�s fig. 8, so far as it goes, givesnbsp;the character of the plant very well, but it gives only a portion of thenbsp;imprint visible on the specimen in the collection, which is evidentlynbsp;the original of the figure. Fig. 8 of Emmons gives only parts of twonbsp;ultimate piniife attached to a primary rachis on the right-hand side.nbsp;The specimen shows much more of the plant. The facies of the ultimate pinnse and of the pinnules is given very well in this figure, andnbsp;fig. 9, which represents an enlarged pinnule, shows quite faithfulty thenbsp;details, so far as they can be made out. The impression of the plantnbsp;on the stone is not very distinct.

The original specimen shows a considerable portion of two primary piniue, both of which contain more of the plant than Emmons depicts.nbsp;The primary pinna, a portion of which he figures, had its rachis originally much larger than represented. There is shown on the right-hand side another ultimate pinna similar to those figured, going off asnbsp;if it had been attached to the rachis prolonged above. Below the pinnules figured, and on the same side, there are portions of three othernbsp;ultimate pinnse, which evidently were originally attached to the rachisnbsp;prolonged below. Emmons�s figure shows, on the left-hand side, onlynbsp;the basal portions of two ultimate pinnse that are without pinnules.nbsp;But the specimen shows here two ultimate pinnse with pinnules nearlynbsp;as numerous and well preserved as those on the right-hand side. Innbsp;addition there is found on the slab of stone, to the right of the primary pinna above described, a second pinna of the same character, butnbsp;with a considerably smaller rachis. This has its lower termination,

about 11 cm., distinct from the lower termination of the first-mentioned primaiy pinna, and it is so placed that if the two were prolonged downward thej^ woidd meet under an angle of 45�. This smaller pinna looks as if it were sent ofi' lower down from the largernbsp;rachis, or probably from near the summit of a common trunk.

This smaller rachis on the right is, like the first named, only a fragment. It has attached to it, on both sides, a number of ultimate pinnaj, carrj^ing pinnules similar to those figured by Emmons, but somewhatnbsp;smaller. There are also several ultimate pinnae so placed as to indicatenbsp;that the}- were attached to it lower down. It will be seen from thisnbsp;description that the fern must have had a wide spread and that it wasnbsp;much larger than is indicated by Emmons�s figure. Emmons�s figure ofnbsp;the principal rachis makes it too straight and rigid. It is really rathernbsp;flexuous and shows ridges. The epidermis of the plant seems to benbsp;veiy durable, for it is now retained on the stone as a black, shiningnbsp;film. The pinnules are more obtuse than Emmons�s figure indicates.

I have represented one of these enlarged in PI. XXXVIIT, lig- 1. This plant is much like Acrostichites jgt;rinceps (Presl) Schenk,� but as itnbsp;shows no fructification it can not be stated that it is an Acrostichites.nbsp;The habit of the pinnules is much like that of the pinnules of A. prtn-cej)8., which fact is not well shown in Emmons�s figure. This makesnbsp;the plant too rigid in aspect. The pinnules, however, are on an averagenbsp;larger than those of Schenk�s plant, and if it is an Acrostichites it isnbsp;almost a modified form or representative of A. j)rincep8. But mostnbsp;probabljr it is a new species. The attitude of the two principal pinntenbsp;indicates that they radiate from a common trunk, as Schenk representsnbsp;in A. princeps.

1838. Laccopieris elegans Presl in Sternberg: Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. II, p. 115, pi. xxxii, figs. 8a (1, 2, 3), 8b, 8c.

1883. Undetermined fern (ci. Laccopieris elegans Presl) Font.: Older Mesozoic Hora of Virginia, Mon. �. S. Geol. Survey, p. 105, pi. li, fig. 6.

Emmons ^ notes a small fern which he leaves undescribed, but he says of it that it is probably a Pecopteris. Judging from the aspect of the

^ Foss. FI. der Grenzschichlen dcs Keupers und Lias Frankens, pp. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pi. vii, figs. 3, 3a, 4, 4a, 5,

^Goppert�s name nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;has priority over Presl�s by two years. He bases his descrip

tion on the same ifiate and figures, which Sternberg seems to have sent him, so that there is no question of identity. The specific name given by G�ppert must therefore stand. Although he credits it to Sternberg, there is no proof that Sternberg suggested it. It was probably a mere compliment, andnbsp;it must be credited to G�ppert, who first published it.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;I-�-nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�

plant as shown in this figure, and especiallj^ from the apparent digitate arrangement of the foliage, I was led to think it a Laccopteris, probably identical with L. elegans of Presl, and so stated in Mon. �. S.nbsp;Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 105. The original of the figure is in thenbsp;quot;Williams College collection of Emmons. This is the only specimennbsp;of the plant that 1 saw.

Emmons�s figure does not give an exact representation of the plant. This figure indicates onl}^ two pinnules going off, diverging from anbsp;common point, whereas, in the specimen, there are three if not more.nbsp;Two of them are as Emmons has indicated, and the third, standing onnbsp;the left of the other two, is denoted by a very short portion of itsnbsp;base, where it was attached to the others. Hence it may be easily overlooked. The character of the plant is given in Fig. 2, PI. XXXVIII.nbsp;The basal pinnules differ from those higher up on the rachis. Theynbsp;are wider than long, with a rotundate-subquadrate shape. The nervation of these is like that of Odontopteris, while that of the highernbsp;ones is like that of Pecopteris. The form of the higher pinnules isnbsp;not so Pecopteris-like as Emmons�s figure makes them. Their basesnbsp;are much the widest portions and they are decurrent. They arenbsp;obliquely placed on the rachis. Fig. 3 gives an enlargement of thenbsp;lower pinnules, and Fig. 4 of the upper ones.

The features seen make it still more probable that the plant is a Laccopteris like L. elegans^ but as no fructification is shown, and thenbsp;amount of material insufficient, it will be best to leave the determination doubtful.

Genus -ASTEROCARPUS G�ppert.

Many specimens of a large fern are in Emmons�s collection which prove to be identical with Asterocarpus virgmiensis, a common form innbsp;tbe Virginia Older Mesozoic. It is the most abundant plant collectednbsp;by Emmons, Lonchopteris ohlonga, standing next to it. The largenbsp;number of specimens collected most probably indicates that the plantnbsp;is in fact common in the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina. Thisnbsp;agrees well with its occurrence in the Virginia beds, where it is onenbsp;of the most widely distributed ferns, affording many good specimens.

In fhe North Carolina strata, as indicated by Emmons�s specimens, both sterile and fertile forms occur, the former being much the morenbsp;common. Most of the sterile forms corttain long, narrow pinnules,nbsp;the proportion of slender pinnules being greater than is shown in thenbsp;Virginia specimens. On one specimen of shale from Ellingtons, three

ultimate pinnae are shown, one of them 10 cm long. They are numerous, long, slender pinnae, and are so placed as to indicate that they were all attached to a principal rachis. This denotes a plant of large size,nbsp;comparable with the large Virginia forms. While the long, slendernbsp;pinnules are most common on Emmons�s specimens, some of them shownbsp;the short, very obtuse pinnules that are more common in the Virginianbsp;forms. Fig. 5 I�epresents the more common form of Emmons�s fossils.nbsp;Fig. 4 gives a fragment of a penultimate rachis and a portion of annbsp;ultimate pinna that was probably attached to it. The ultimate pinnanbsp;carries some pinnules of the shorter and proportionally broader form,nbsp;which are less common.

Emmons, in Ft. VI of his American Geology, p. 100, pi. iv, fig. 9, describes a fern that he calls Pecopteris /alcatus, and in fig. 5 of thenbsp;same plate he gives an allied fern, which he says may be called P.nbsp;falcatus variabilis. On pages 100-101, fig. 68, pi. iv, figs. 1, 2, henbsp;describes sterile and fruiting forms of what he regards as a difi'erentnbsp;fern, and names it P. carolinetisis. All of these are forms of the polj--morphous Asterocarpus virginiensis. The difi'erent appearance of thenbsp;sori in the forms regarded by Emmons as difi'erent species is due tonbsp;the fact that the sori of the supposed P. falcatus are seen with thenbsp;upper surface of the frond presented uppermost, while in the formsnbsp;given as P. canMnensis they are presented with the lower surface ofnbsp;the frond uppermost and show their true character, which is that ofnbsp;Asterocarpus virginiensis. Emmons�s figures of these plants are notnbsp;good.

In reviewing these plants in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survej', Vol. VI, p. 102,1 had to depend on Emmons�s figures. I supposed that they represented plants that were constant in the difi'erent forms depicted,nbsp;with no specimens forming a passage from one form to the other.nbsp;Hence I accepted the conclusion of Emmons that two species are involved, and, from the fructification, I supposed them to be Laccopteris.nbsp;I suggested that Pecopteris falcatus be called Laccopteris Emrnonsi andnbsp;Laccopteris carolinensis be named L. cdrolinensis.

Emmons makes mention of this fern, which is so common in the Virginia Older VIesozoic, in American Geology, Ft. VI, p. 102, butnbsp;does not say where it occurs. He gives a figure (fig. 70, on p. 103) ofnbsp;a fern of this general character, with the lamina in segments, sayingnbsp;that this form occurs often, if not always, in this shape. Possibly thisnbsp;may really be an Anomozamites or Nilsonia.

folia. The lamina on one side of the midrib is all missing and on the other side there is at most only a width of half an inch. This leafnbsp;does not seem to have been large, as the midrib is only 2 mm. wide.

Emmons�s collection contains a small fragment �f shale, with the locality not given, similar to that from Ellington�s, that yields the best-preserved fossil plants, and on this there is shown a fragment of whatnbsp;must have been a very large pinnule, clearly of the Danseopsis type.nbsp;In his published descriptions he makes no allusion to it. A label,nbsp;however, evidentlj^ attached by him, is marked � Strangerites, innbsp;fruit.�

The fragment is quite imperfect. It shows a portion of a stout rachis, which retains on both sides a small portion of the lamina, morenbsp;on the left side than on the right. On each side there are parallelnbsp;rows of small sori, which appear to have stood, originally, one on eachnbsp;side of the lateral nerves, as in Danmopsis marantcuiea (Presl) Heer.nbsp;Of course, only the basal portions of the rows next to the rachis arenbsp;preserved. The rows are arranged as they would be to follow thenbsp;course of the nerves. They make at the rachis an acute angle with it,nbsp;but farther off curve away, so as to make a right angle with it. Fig.nbsp;7 shows what is now to be seen on the specimen. The fragment isnbsp;too imperfect to disclose fully the nature of the plant. It may be anbsp;fructified form of Pseudodanmopsis nervosa., or of P. reticulata Font.nbsp;\P. plana (Emm.) Font.], both of which, in sterile foiTn, appear tonbsp;occur in the North Carolina Older Mesozoic. If we take the course ofnbsp;the sori as indicating the nature of the lateral nerves, they not beingnbsp;preserved, the plant is nearer to Danempsis marantacea than either ofnbsp;these. The lateral nerves are in that case closer than in either of thenbsp;species of Pseudodanseopsis and much resemble those of D. marantacea.

Emmons gives, on p. 122, fig. 90, of the same work, a description of a plant nearly allied to the above, and this he calls Strangerites plamis,nbsp;thinking that both forms are cycads. This plant I identified, in Mon.nbsp;U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 116, from Emmons�s figure, with Pseu-dodanoiopsis reticulata of the Virginia Older Mesozoic. In Emmons�snbsp;collection I saw a well-preserved fragment of a pinnule of this plant

that shows about 6 cm. of its length, with margins well preserved, but not possessing the basal and terminal portions. This is probablynbsp;Emmons�s type specimen. It is without doubt PseudodancBopsis reticulata. It shows all the characteristic features of the Virginia plant,^nbsp;both in nervation and in the general character of the pinnules. Thesenbsp;features are strongly marked and not common.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Strangeriies obliquus Emm.; Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Stmngerites obliquus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 121, flg. 89on p. 122.nbsp;1883. Pseudodanxopsig nervosa Pont.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

Emmons, in American Greology, Pt. VI, pp. 121, 122, tig 89, gdves a description of the pinnule of a large fern which, from its resemblancenbsp;to PeeudodaiueopHiH nervosa, I was led to regard as identical with it, andnbsp;so stated in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 116. The original ofnbsp;Emmons�s figure was not seen in his collection, but a fragment of anbsp;large pinnule of a similar plant was found. This shows a portion of itsnbsp;margin with the characteristic marginal anastomosis of the nerves seennbsp;in the Virginia form. This, with the character of the pinnule and itsnbsp;strong, rarely branching, remote nerves, shows that without doubt thenbsp;plant does occur in the North Carolina beds, and that probably thenbsp;form described by Emmons is identical with it. It seems to havenbsp;been rare, as only the fragment mentioned was seen. The nerves innbsp;Emmons�s figured specimen owe their straggling character to distortion from maceration and pressure.

Genus LONCHOPTERIS Brongniart.

Emmons gives a representation of a fern with reticulate nervation, which he names Acrostichites oblongus. Fig. 8 is a good representationnbsp;of one of the specimens in the collection, which, however, is now atnbsp;least more fragmentary than the figure represents it to be. It is onenbsp;of the smaller forms of this plant. In preparing Mon. �. S. Geol.nbsp;Survey, Vol. VI, I was led, from an inspection of this figure, to thinknbsp;that this species is not an Acrostichites, but a Lonchopteris, as itnbsp;resembles L. virginiensis of the Older Mesozoic of Virginia. I wasnbsp;confirmed in this view after examining the considerable number ofnbsp;specimens of this plant that occur in the collection of Williams College.

To judge from the number of specimens that Emmons obtained, which is quite large, this fern must have been one of the most common plantsnbsp;in the North Carolina beds. None of the pinnules seen equal in sizenbsp;those of the largest size in L. virginiemis. The plant, however,nbsp;must have attained considerable size, for one of the penultimatenbsp;rachises seen is 1 cm. wide. This specimen, which is represented innbsp;Fig. 8, PI. XXXVIII, shoivs pretty well the general character of thenbsp;larger forms of the fossil. The ultimate rachises are always strong innbsp;the forms with largest pinnules, as is shown in Fig. 9, which repre.sentsnbsp;an ultimate rachis that carries pinnules of the largest size seen.nbsp;The pinnules are never large, as is shown by the figure. Like the Virginia Lonchopteris, the leaf substance is thick and leatheiy, so thatnbsp;it masks the details of the nervation. This is the type of the genus,nbsp;and it appears to be rather more closely reticulate than Emmons hasnbsp;represented it to be. The pinnules are generally oblong in shapenbsp;and veiy obtuse at their tips. The smaller pizmules, however, suchnbsp;as are represented in Fig. 10, tend to be more acute. They are closelynbsp;crowded together, but not imbricated as Emmons has representednbsp;them in his fig. 8. In the lower portion of the frond they are separate, but higher up become more and more united.

Emmons, in his American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 104, pi. iv, fig. 10, describes a plant which he names Oyclopteris obscunts. In Mon. U. S.nbsp;Geol. Survejq Vol. VI, p. 104, I identified this with Sagenopteris rhoi-folia. An inspection of specimens of the plant makes it most probablenbsp;that it is a different species. I did not see in the collection any specimen that appears to be the original of Emmons�s figure, but there arenbsp;several that plainly belong to the same plant. All the specimens arenbsp;very imperfectly preserved. The most complete one is that representednbsp;in PI. XXXIX, Fig. 1. The others are fragments of single leaves.nbsp;One of the largest and the most perfect of them is represented in Fig. 3.nbsp;The leaves are too poorl}^ preserved to indicate with certainty whatnbsp;their size and exact shape were. They seem to have been of very thinnbsp;texture and to have been grouped, after the fashion of Sagenopteris,nbsp;at the summit of a common stem. Basal portions of two are shownnbsp;in Fig. T, which seem to be thus arranged. In shape they seem to havenbsp;been oblong, widening toward their summits and narrowing to their

1 In view of the doubts that Professor Fontaine expresses as to whether this is really the same as Emmons�s Cyclopteris obscMTus, and especially of the fact that the type specimen was not found atnbsp;Williams College, I shall not treat it as the same plant by retaining Emmons�s name for it, but as anbsp;new species, leaving the question of identity as it stood before.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. F. W.

bases. They appear to have been quite small�much smaller than the normal leaves of S. rhoifoUa. The texture appears to have been muchnbsp;more delicate than that of the latter plant, but the most important difference is in the nervation. There is no trace of midrib or even of anbsp;parent nerve at the base of the leavms. Schimper makes the existencenbsp;of a midnerve a feature in the character of Sagenopteris. If it is annbsp;essential one, then this plant is not a Sagenopteris. In the ultimatenbsp;nervation the anastomosis occurs at long intervals, the nerves forking,nbsp;and occasionally a branch uniting with an adjoining nerve. The methodnbsp;of anastomosing resembles that of Nathorst�s genus Arthrophyopsis.nbsp;Nathorst^ describes, from the Rhetic flora of Bjuf, a plant with the namenbsp;Sagenopteris dentata that is much like th� one now in question. It hasnbsp;the same thin texture, absence of midrib, and sparse anastomosis, butnbsp;the North Carolina plant, perhaps owing to its imperfect preservation,nbsp;does not show any dentation.

Asrostichites linncecefolius^ a fern that is very characteristic of the Older Mesozoic of Virginia, is not given b}^ Emmons as occurring innbsp;North Carolina. His mention of it on page 104 of Pt. VI indicatesnbsp;that he had not seen it in the North Carolina beds.* In his collectionnbsp;at Williams College I saw an imprint of a fragment of an ultimatenbsp;pinna, containing a number of pinnules, which show the form of thenbsp;sterile pinnules of this plant, and also the characteristic sori. Thenbsp;specimen had no label giving the locality, hence it is possible, but notnbsp;probable, that it comes from the Virginia beds.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Undetermined plant. Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Odonlopteris tenuifolius^ Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 105, pi. iii, fig. 5.nbsp;1883. Acrostichides rhombifolius Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U.

xi, figs. 1, la, 2, 3; pi. xii, figs. 1, la, 2; pi. xiii, figs. 1, la, 2; pi. xiv; pi.

One of the type specimens of the plant descinbed by Emmons* as Odontopteris tenifolius^ seen by me in his collection. It is the

^His figure (North Carolina Report, pi. ii, fig. 6: American Geology, Pt. VI, pi. vi, fig. 6) is a copy of the upper part of Bunbury�s, in Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. Ill, 1847, pi. x.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. I. W.

original of Emmons�s fig. 5 on pi. iii. In nw review of Emmons�s plants, published in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Yoh VI, pp. 105-106,nbsp;I was led, judging from Emmons�s fig. 5, to regard this plant as identicalnbsp;with Aerostichites rliombifolius^ a fern that is characteristic of thenbsp;Older Mesozoic of Virginia. An inspection of the specimen confirmsnbsp;me in that belief. Emmons�s fig. 5, pi. iii, gives pretty well the general aspect of this, the only specimen seen. It does not, however,nbsp;represent the pinnules of the lower pinnje quite as wide and as muchnbsp;separated as they are in the original. The nerves of this latter arenbsp;not very distinct, but they show the character of those of A. rJiombi-foUus. I give in PI. XXXIX, Fig. 4, a representation of a few of thenbsp;lower pinnules on a pinna, to indicate their character on the specimen.nbsp;I did not see the original of pi. vi, fig. 1. Possibly that is a differentnbsp;species.

Class EQUISETALES.

Family EQUISETACEAE.

In the collection theregt;are several fossils which ai'e.much flattened casts of the stems of an Equisetum and several imprints, which werenbsp;made by the exterior surface of apparently the same species of plant.nbsp;Both are exactly like the markings left by similar parts of Equisef,umnbsp;Rogersii^ as found in the Older Mesozoic of Virginia. Hence there cannbsp;be little doubt that this plant is found in North Carolina. Emmons, innbsp;American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 35, describes a form which he calls Cala-ndtes punctat'us and refers to pi. ii, fig. 5, for a figure of it. Plate ii isnbsp;absent, but pi. vi, fig. 5, gives a plant that agrees with his description.^nbsp;In my review published in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. YI, p. 98, Inbsp;concluded that this is not an Equisetum, but a fragment of a leaf ofnbsp;Sphenozamites Rogersianus. I saw nothing like it in the collection andnbsp;have no reason to change my opinion. The original, also, of Emmons�snbsp;Equisetum columnaroides^ described in American Geology, Pt. VI, p.nbsp;35, and figured in pi. vi, fig. 3 (given by Emmons as pi. ii, tig. 3), wasnbsp;not seen. The casts above mentioned are quite different from each ofnbsp;these fossils as described by Emmons, and they show the finely striatenbsp;surface so characteristic of the casts of the Virginia plant, which hasnbsp;been called Catamites arenaceus.

2 It is pi. ii, fig. 5, of the earlier Geological Keport of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, which Professor Fontaine did not use. The plates are the same in the two volumes, but pi. ii of the earliernbsp;is plate vi of the later one. On p. 349 (description of the plates) of the former. Dr. Emmons says ofnbsp;this figure: � Leaflet of an undescribed plant.� He does not mention it in the text.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. F. W.

he named Eqioisetmn cohimnare. This in its markings is more like the imprints'made by the exterior of the stems of E. Rogersii above mentioned, but these last do not show the teeth on the sheath as Emmons�snbsp;figure does in its upper part. The original of Emmons s figure wasnbsp;not seen. His Calamites disjunctus is an imprint of the same naturenbsp;as Qalamites arenaceus.

1843. CalamitesplanicostatusTiogers: Trans. Assoc. Am. Geol. and Nat., Philadelphia, 1843, p. 305.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...

1883. Schizoneura planicostata (Bogers) Font.; Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 14, pi. i, fig. 1.

One imprint of the interior of a stem was seen that has features presented by fossils found in the Older Mesozoic of Virginia, whichnbsp;I regarded as probably a new species of Schizoneura, and named it S.nbsp;planicostata. The Williams College specimen jias the same kindnbsp;raised lines or ribs on the imprint. They are decidedlj^ wider andnbsp;stronger than the lines formed by the interior of the stems of Equise-tum Rogersii and appear to belong to a quite different plant. I donbsp;not positively identify it with S. planicostata,., on account of the smallnbsp;amount of material. Emmons makes no mention of such a plant.

Subkingdom SPERMATOPHYTA.

The cycads of Emmons�s collection are the most important type of plants both in number of species and in abundance of individuals.nbsp;It is important to note that they are, as Emmons states, found only innbsp;Ills upper series, 1,.500 to 2,000 feet above the beds that contain coal.nbsp;20 GEOL, PT 2-19

1857. Pterozamitespectinaius Emm.: American Geology, Ft. VI, igt;. 117, fig. 84.

1883. Pterophyllum pectinatum Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

In American Geologiquot;, Pt. VI, p. 117, fig. 84, Emmons gives a description of a cycad which he calls Pterozamites pectinatus. Thenbsp;type specimen is in his collection, and fig. 84 gives a very accuratenbsp;delineation of it. In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 112, Inbsp;expressed the opinion that it is a new Pterophyllum, near to P.nbsp;Lyellianum of Dunker. An examination of the fossil shows that itnbsp;is a true Pterophyllum, and a new species. It is a beautiful specimen,nbsp;and remarkably well preserved for so delicate a plant. As Emmonsnbsp;says, the leaflets are narrow, many nerved, and stand at right anglesnbsp;to the strong midrib. It may be added that they are obtuse at theirnbsp;tips, and are thin in texture. They are a little over 1 mm. wide andnbsp;2 cm. long, and stand close together.

PL XXXIX, Fig. 5.

One of the few plants that Emmons obtained from the coal-bearing portion of the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina is the fine specimennbsp;of what he calls Sphenopteris egyptiaca. On the slab which bears thisnbsp;specimen is a rather obscure imprint of a fragment of what seems tonbsp;have been a large leaf. It shows only a portion of the lamina or leaflets on one side of the midrib. None of the latter are certainlynbsp;preseri'ed, for the leaflets, in part, seem to have been torn off close tonbsp;it. In one or two of the supposed leaflets there is an indication thatnbsp;a thin strip of the midrib is still preserved. The segments look innbsp;some respects much like Pterophyllum affine Nath., which occurs innbsp;the Virginia beds.** It resembles this plant in its fine, parallel, singlenbsp;nerves, which go off at right angles with the midrib, but is unlike itnbsp;in the great inequality of its leaflets. These stand at right anglesnbsp;with the midrib, and have their margins parallel. They do not show

iBoth the earlier names are anticipated. Brongniart (Tableau, 1849, p. 62) says that his Zamites 'pectinatus {Zamia pectinata. Prodrome, 1828, p. 94) is a Pterozamites, and a number of authors havenbsp;referred this same plant from the Oolite of Stonesfield, in England, to the genus Pterophyllum.nbsp;The earliest such reference that I have been able to find is in the Pr�cis �l�mentaire de G�ologie, parnbsp;J. J. d�Omalius d�Halloy, Paris, 1843, p. 481. It is true that these are all synonymys of Sternberg�s Poly-podiolites pectiniformis (Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. I, fase. iii, 1823 p. 39, pl. xxxiii, fig. 1), but for thatnbsp;reason as well as for others the specific name must be dropped.

In naming this elegant species for Dr. T. Nelson Dale, I wish to express a small part of the gratitude that all who are interested in the subject feel toward him for bringing to light, in the manner described, this long-lost scientific treasure�the Emmons collection.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. F. W.

their tips, as they are torn off. The width of the leaflets varies from 11 mm. to 25 mm. or more, for the widest one, as shown in Fig. 5, is notnbsp;wholly preserved. Possibly the plant is a Nilsonia, as the mode ofnbsp;attachment of the leaflets is not certainly shown. They seem, however, to have been attached to the side of the midrib. _ The gwieralnbsp;facies and nervation are unlike those of MaGrotcBniopteris magmfoUa,nbsp;even if we admit the segmentation to be identical. This plant resembles slightly the form mentioned above as tigured bj' Fnrmons fornbsp;Tmniopteris magnifolia of Rogers. Emmons says, as quoted before,nbsp;that it is often, if not always, divided into segments down to the

midrib.

It is, of course, not possible to determine from this amount of fragmentary material the true position of this plant. It should be noted that the expression quoted from Emirrons implies that the plant isnbsp;Lather common, but he says nothing explicit regarding its occurrence,nbsp;and does not mention the locality yielding it. It is significant that thenbsp;constancy of its segmentation attracted Emmons�s attention, and suggested the idea that it might not be accidental. In the hundreds ofnbsp;specimens from the Virginia Older Mesozoic that 1 saw nrany werenbsp;variously lacerated, but it was always evident that the segmentatronnbsp;was accidental.

Gtenophyllum Bbaunianum angustum (Friedrich Braun) Schimpei. PI. XXXIX, Figs. 6, 7.

1843. Pterozamiles angmlua Fr. Braun in Munster: Beitriige zur Petreiactenkunde, Vol. 11, Pt. yi, p. 30.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,

1856. Pierozamites decussalus Emm.: Geological Keport of the Midland Coun les o North Carolina, p. 330, pi. iii, fig- 1-nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,

1856. Zanlea gramirdoidea Emm,: Op. oit., p. 330 {DioniUa grammoidea, p. 349), pi. iv, .fig. 11.

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Pterozamiles spaiulalus Emm.; American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 120,Mg. 88.

1867. Pterophyllum Braunianum var. a Schenk: Foss. Fl. der Grenzschichten des Keupers und Lias Frankens, p. 164, pi. xxxviii, fig. 6. 'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,, , i �

1870. Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. a (Schenk) Schimp.: Trait� de Pa on o ogie V�g�tale, Vol. II, p. 144.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;. .

1883. Pterophyllum decussatum (Emm.) Font.; Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mou. U. S. Geol, Survey, Vol. VI, p. 111, pt �, Ag- 2-1883. Pterophyllum spatulatuT�i (Emm.) Font.: Op. cit., p. 114, pl. Ini, dg-

There are in Emmons�s collection several fine impressions of Gteno-phylVum, Srcuunianum var. oc. They differ in no respect from the typ

1 Schenk leaves no doubt that his var. a here is the PlerozamUes angustus of Braun in M�nster�s Beitrage. It is therefore much better to restore Braun�s name with varietal rank than to perpetmtenbsp;the awkward designation by a Greek letter.

ical form of this plant that is so common in the Older Mesozoic of Virginia. None of them, however, are as large specimens as some obtained from the Virginia beds. The number of specimens in the collectionnbsp;is proportionally large, and this fact seems to indicate that in the stratanbsp;of North Carolina, as in those of Virginia, the fossil is a common one.nbsp;Fig. 6 of PI. XXXIX gives a portion of the midrib and parts ofnbsp;several leaflets taken from a specimen 9 cm. long, with numerousnbsp;leaflets on each side of the midrib.

Emmons gives, in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 121, pi. iv, fig. 11, a description of a form that he calls Dionites linearis. The original ofnbsp;this was found in his collection. The specimen shows leaflets slightlynbsp;wider than those drawn by Emmons. He represents the bases of somenbsp;of the leaflets as inserted on the upper face of the midrib. This appearance is caused by distortion due to pressure. The bases have slippednbsp;over slightly, owing to the creeping of the shale. The plant is, nonbsp;doubt, a form of CtenophylVum Brcmnianurri, var. a that is somewhatnbsp;narrower in its leaflets than the average. Perhaps this narrowing isnbsp;also due to pressure. The type specimen of Pteropliyllum decussatwmnbsp;was also seen.

Emmons�s fig. 1 on pi. iii gives an exact representation of this fossil. It is clearly Ctenophyllum Bramiianum var. a. The specimen belongsnbsp;to a lower portion of the leaf, but the leaflets probably did not originally stand so exactly at right angles with the midrib. They probably were brought into this position by pressure. The shale on whichnbsp;these fossils are preserved seems sometimes to have crept, under thenbsp;action of pressure, producing more or less displacement of the partsnbsp;of the fossils.

Emmons gives, on p. 120 of his work, a description of a form which he calls Pterozamites spatulatus., representing it by fig. 88. The original of this was found in his collection, and it is given in Fig. 7 of thisnbsp;paper. Emmons�s figure is erroneous and would completely misleadnbsp;one. He represents all the leaflets on the right side of the midrib asnbsp;showing their original terminations. None of them do this, and theynbsp;were originally longer than the parts they now show. The narrowingnbsp;of the leaflets toward their bases, as represented by Emmons, is muchnbsp;more decided than that shown in the specimen. What is presentnbsp;appears to be due mainly to pressure, which has in the basal partsnbsp;pushed the margins down in the shale to a slight extent. The basalnbsp;portions are not so far apart as Emmons represents them to be. Thenbsp;specimen now in question is the only one seen that has any tendencynbsp;to a spatulate shape. There can hardly be a doubt that this is a distorted specimen of Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. oc.

1843. Plerozamites abbreviatua Fr. Braun in M�nster; Beitriige zur Petrefactenkunde, Vol. II, Pt. VI, p. 30.

1843. Zamites obtuaifolius Rogers: Trans. Assoc. Am. Geol. and Nat., Philadelphia, p. 312, pi. xiv, lower left-hand figure.

1857. Pterozamites obtimfolius (Rogers) Emm.; American Geology, Pt. VI, ii. 118, fig. 85.

1867. Pterophyllum Braunianum var. /3 Schenk: Foss. FI. der Grenzschichten des Keupers und Lias Frankens, p. 164, pi. xxxviii, fig. 2.�

1870. Ctenopllyllum Braunianum var. (i (Schenk) Schimp.; Trait� de Paleontologie V�g�tale, Vol. II, p. 144.

Emmons, in American Geology, Pt. YI, gives on pp. 118-119 a description,with figs. 85, 86, of two cycadaceous forms, which are thenbsp;var. /J, with shorter leaflets, of G�ppert�s CtenopJiyllum Braunianum.nbsp;Numerous specimens were seen in his collection of cycad leaves thatnbsp;range in character from the smaller leaf, which he calls Pterozamiteanbsp;gracilh, to the larger form, which he names P. obtusifolius. Leavesnbsp;with still larger leaflets, belonging, however, to this species, occur innbsp;the collection. Figs. 8 and 9 of PI. XXXIX show common forms ofnbsp;the leaves seen. To judge from the number of specimens collectednbsp;by Emmons, this plant must have been one of the most common onesnbsp;in the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina. It was not seen in thenbsp;Virginia strata. The leaflets are not quite so obtuse as Emmons hasnbsp;represented them in both his P. obtusifolius and P. gracilis.

1883. Ctenophyllum lineare (Emm.) Font.; Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 114, pi. liv, fig. 2.

Emmons gives a description of a small C3quot;cad which he calls P*tero-zamites linearis. His fig. 87 is a very good representation of the plant, as is shown by the type specimen, which occurs in his collection. It is the only specimen seen of this ci^cad. It seems to be anbsp;Ctenophyllum of the same type as C. Braunianum var. y3, and possibly may be a narrow abnormal form of it. It is, however, probably a distinct species, as the leaflets are much narrower and morenbsp;crowded than those of C. Braunianum var. p.

'Schenk here leaves no doubt that his var. ^ is the Pterozamites abbreviaitis of Braun in Munster s Beitriige. it is therefore much better to restore Braun�s name with varietal rank than to perpetnatenbsp;the awkward designation by a Greek letter.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^ W

1857. Plerrjphyllmii rolmstum Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 122, fig. 91 on p. 123.

Emmons gives, in American Geology, Pt. VI, pp. 122,123, tigs. 91, 92, a description of a cycad which he calls Pterophyllum robustum. I didnbsp;not find in his collection any form corresponding to his fig. 92, whichnbsp;represents the terminal portion of a leaf. Only one imprint with itsnbsp;reverse was seen. This is evidently the original of Emmons�s fig. 91.nbsp;This figure represents the ends of the leaflets as entire, whereas thenbsp;specimen shows, on careful inspection, that the original tips are wanting. The plant may he a Pterophyllum, but the oblique position ofnbsp;the leaflets seems to be the natural one. It is more likely to be anbsp;Ctenophyllum.

I did not see the original of Emmons�s fig. 86a, given to represent what he calls Pterozamites obtusm. The plant represented by it doesnbsp;not seem to be different from Ctenophyllum rolmstum. PL XXXIX,nbsp;Fig. 10, gives a representatioi\ of some of the leaflets of C. roht�tum, tonbsp;show how the ends of the fragments of leaflets were left in such shapenbsp;that casual inspection might determine them to be true tips. Emmons�snbsp;fig. 91 gives correctly the dimensions of the leaflets, their closelynbsp;crowded, oblique position, and the number (8 of 9) of the strong nerves.nbsp;But the leaflets narrow slightly toward their tips and are somewhatnbsp;decurrent.

1856. Cycadites longifolius Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, p. 330.

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cycadites longifolius Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 115, fig. 82.

1883. Pioonites longifolius (Emm.) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon.

Emmons gives, in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 116, fig. 83, a representation of a fine cycad which he calls Podozamites loiyjifolius. The figure unfortunately represents a distorted specimen, and hence the truenbsp;facies of the plant is not given. I found among Emmons�s specimens

a number of rvell-preserved impressions of a fine plant that had not been described in his account of the North Carolina fossils. A careful examination of them, and of the cycads described by him, convinced me that these apparently new plants are the undistorted formsnbsp;of the plant given in his fig. 83. Notwithstanding the fact thatnbsp;Emmons�s description and figure give an incorrect impression, I shallnbsp;retain his name for the plant, as there is no convincing evidence thatnbsp;it IS not a Podozamites, while the specific name longifolms is justifiednbsp;by the length of the fragments of leaves. These indicate that thenbsp;entire leaves must have had great length, in the same work (p. 115,nbsp;fig. 82) Emmons gives a description of a form which he calls Cycaditesnbsp;longifolius. His figure does not indicate the presence of a midrib, anbsp;fact mentioned by Emmons. He states that the midrib is indicatednbsp;only bir a longitudinal channel, because � the frond adheres to thenbsp;rock by the back.� From this he does not seem to have distinctlynbsp;seen a midrib. I have seen in the collection no cycad with a midribnbsp;like this figure, but some of the forms of Podozamites Imx/ifoliusnbsp;strongly resemble it. Moreover, in P. longifolius, which has thicknbsp;leaflets, there is often a deceptive appearance, which at first sightnbsp;gives the impression of a midrib. Careful inspection, however,nbsp;shows that it is due either to a wrinkle in the middle of the leafletsnbsp;or to a film of carbonaceous matter that remains there. In both thesenbsp;species of Emmons the leaflets are represented as not narrowing muchnbsp;at their insertion on the midrib. That is due to the fact that both ofnbsp;the specimens figured present their lower sui'face uppermost, and thenbsp;actual insertions are covered by the broad midrib. Specimens ofnbsp;Podozamites longifolius that present their lower face uppermost havenbsp;the insertions of their leaflets disguised in this way.

The texture was thick and apparentlj^ leather-like. The leaves probably attained the length of half a meter or more. The generalnbsp;facies of the leaf is much like that of Dioonites Buchiamis^ havingnbsp;the leaflets of the lower part of the ' ib so set on the midrib as tonbsp;make an angle with it of 45� or n_.,re. Toward the summit of thenbsp;leaf the leaflets are inserted under more and more acute angles, whilenbsp;at the summit there is a terminal leaflet that is found in the directionnbsp;of the prolongation of the midrib. PL XL gives a form that belongsnbsp;to perhaps the middle of the leaf. It shows the true attitude of thenbsp;leaflets only in the lower ones on the right-hand side, the others goingnbsp;ofi' under too large an angle, owing to distortion from pressure. Thenbsp;midrib is strong and ridged. Portions were seen 6 to 7 mm. wide, butnbsp;these were not the largest parts, as the petioles and basal portions arenbsp;represented in none of the fossils. The texture of the leaflets wasnbsp;thick and leathery, so as to hide the nerves. These could not be seen

distinctly, but they appear to have the character of those of Podoza-mites. The leaflets are widest not far above their bases, and grow narrower very slowly towai'd their tips. They end in a lancet-shapednbsp;tip. At their bases they are abruptly narrowed and rounded into anbsp;very short petiole, by which they are inserted on the midrib. Theynbsp;are then in general shape linear. PI. XL gives the specimen withnbsp;the largest ones seen, and these have probably the maximum sizenbsp;attained. In this specimen the tips of none of the leaflets are preserved, but enough is shown to indicate that they were a little morenbsp;than 7 cm. long. Their maximum width is 6 mm. The insertion ofnbsp;the leaflets on the midrib is mostly on the side. In some the insertionnbsp;seems to be on the upper face of the midrib and slightly within itsnbsp;margins. Possibly this appeai�ance maj^ be due to pressure, whichnbsp;has caused the bases to slip over on the upper face of the midrib.nbsp;The insertion is made by what does not seem to be a true petiole, butnbsp;rather a much narrowed and thickened portion of the base. PI. XLInbsp;shows a form that is the terminal portion of a leaf, and it is apparently the terminal part of the leaf the lower portion of which is represented on PI. XL. Here the leaflets grow smaller and shorter andnbsp;are set on more and more obliquely. This part of the leaf seems tonbsp;end with a leaflet lying in the direction of the prolongation of thenbsp;midrib.

As shown by the specimens collected by Emmons, there are in the Older Mesozoic strata of North Carolina at least two species of thisnbsp;type of plant. Emmons detected this fact. He described the formnbsp;with larger leaflets in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 116, pi. iii, fig. 7,nbsp;calling it Podozamites lanceolatus. As it is not the P. lanceolatmnbsp;of the Jurassic, Dr. Newberry suggested that it be named P. Em-monsii. Emmons�s figure of it is not very good. It is clearly a different species from P. longifolius. I found a plant in the Oldernbsp;Mesozoic of Virginia of the same type with Emmons�s species, andnbsp;with some hesitation identified it with the latter,' from oversight, notnbsp;crediting Dr. Newberry with suggesting the specific name Emmonsii.nbsp;Since I have had the opportunity to examine Emmons�s specimens I amnbsp;satisfied that the Virginia fossil is not the same as the larger form,nbsp;which must retain the name Emmonsii, but is P. longifolius. There isnbsp;a marked resemblance between this type of plant and the genus Nagei-opsis of the Younger Mesozoic of the Potomac formation. I amnbsp;inclined to the opinion that such plants as Podozamites Emmonsii, P.nbsp;longifolius, and_P. tenuistriatus are not cycads, but conifers allied to thenbsp;Nageia section of Podocarpus, and perhaps ancestral forms of Nagei-opsis. Of course, until they show branching forms, or some othernbsp;feature not belonging to the cycads, they must be left in the oldnbsp;group of Podozamites.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Podozamites lanceolaius Emm. non (L. and H.) Fr. Braun; Geological Report of

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Podozamites lanceolatus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 116, pi. iii, fig. 7.nbsp;1866. Podozamites Emmonsii Newb. in Pumpelly: Geological Researches in China,

Mongolia, and Japan; Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, No. 202, p. 121, pi. ix, fig. 2.

The figure given by Emmons of this plant, as before stated, is, I think, misleading. I did not find the specimen that he illustrated,nbsp;but saw others that appear to belong to this species. They are notnbsp;-P. longi/olius, and agree pretty well with Emmons�s figure. If wenbsp;may judge from these, the figure mentioned makes the leaflets toonbsp;rigid in aspect, with a petiole too long and strong. The basal portions,nbsp;also, are made to appear too thick. Emmons makes all the insertionsnbsp;of the leaflets well within the margins and on the upper face of thenbsp;midrib. They appear to be arranged in a long spiral, like those ofnbsp;P. longifolius. Some of the insertions are on the upper face and somenbsp;on the side. The leaflets contrast strongly with those of P. longifolius.nbsp;Thej^ are thin in texture and show the nerves very distinctly. Thenbsp;latter are as given by Emmons. The leaves are wider, in proportionnbsp;to their length, than those of P. longifolius., but the width, in proportion to length, is not quite so great as is given by Emmons. Fig. 1nbsp;of Pi. XLII gives the most complete specimen seen by me. It is muchnbsp;more fragmentary than the specimen figured by Emmons. The leaflets appear to be more deciduous than those of P. longifolius. Emmonsnbsp;mentioned that some of the detached leaflets are half an inch wide.nbsp;I saw none so large. Fig. 2 shows the largest seen. Possibly this isnbsp;a different species from both of those described.

1843. Zamites tenuistriatus Rogers: Trans. Assoc. Am. Nat. and GeoL, Philadelphia, p. 314.

1883. Podozamites tenuistriatus (Rogers) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 78, pi. xlii, figs. 2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5;nbsp;pi. xliv, fig. 3.

Emmons does not seem to have seen in the North Carolina beds Podozamites tenuistriatus., which, perhaps, is the most common cycadnbsp;of the Older Mesozoic of Virginia. His collection at Williams College,nbsp;however, shows several well-characterized specimens of this species.nbsp;They agree best with the larger forms as shown in the Virginia beds,nbsp;but some of the leaflets are rather larger than any seen in the Virginia strata. PI. XLII, Fig. 3, represents one of the specimens withnbsp;small leaflets.

One of the specimens in Emmons�s collection seems to be a Podo-zamites of a species different from any hitherto described. It is nearest to P. tmuistriatus, but has leaflets that are decidedly larger than any shown by that plant, besides differing in other respects. I hesitate tonbsp;regard it as a new species, on account of the small amount of material,nbsp;only one specimen being seen. This specimen is the terminal portionnbsp;of a leaf. It is well preserved. The lowest leaflets seen go off' at annbsp;angle of about 40�. Higher up they are more obliquely placed. Thenbsp;terminal ones lie in the prolongation of the midrib. The leaflets arenbsp;long in proportion to their width. None of them are entire. Thenbsp;longest fragment seen is 5 cm. long, indicating an original length ofnbsp;about 7 cm. At their bases they narrow gradually, so that the basalnbsp;part is elliptical in shape. They are attached to the side of the midrib by a very short, thickened, much narrowed portion of the leaflet.nbsp;In the leaflets lower down on the midrib this thickened portion maynbsp;appear as a petiole, and the leaflets may be in part attached to thenbsp;upper face of the midrib and be alternate. In this terminal portion ofnbsp;the leaf they are opposite. They are linear in form, varying little innbsp;width from the average, which is 3 cm. The nerves are distinct, as thenbsp;texture of the leaflets was thin. They resemble those of P. temiistri-atuSi being fine and closely placed. Possibly this is a large varietynbsp;of P. tenuistriatws^ but the dimensions of the leaflets at the end of thenbsp;leaf, as seen here, indicate a much larger plant. The general aspectnbsp;of the specimen, and especially of the terminal leaflets, reminds onenbsp;strongly of Dioonites Buchianm of the Lower Cretaceous, but thenbsp;basal portions and mode of attachment of the leaflets are different.

1857. Albertia laiifolia Emm. non Schimp.:' American Geology, Ft. VI, p. 126, fig. 95. 1883. Otozamites carolinenesis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

Emmons has given, in Pt. VI, pp. 126, 127, fig. 95, a description of a fossil which he names Alhertia latifoUa. The original of this is innbsp;his collection at Williams College, and besides that, some detachednbsp;leaflets and a second imprint showing several attached leaflets. Thenbsp;original of Emmons�s fig. 95 is preserved on an argillaceous sandstone,nbsp;which is not fitted to retain the finer details, and, in addition, the

specimen is much distorted by pressure, so that it does not appear so distinct as Emmons has represented. The stem to which the leafletsnbsp;were attached is not so continuous or well defined as it is given in thenbsp;figure. It is broken up, and, in places, pressed down into the sandynbsp;material. None of the leaflets are so distinctly outlined and entire asnbsp;he makes some of them to be. The striation that he gives on them isnbsp;not shown in the original, for the rock is too coarse in texture to shownbsp;any such feature. The leaflets are, in fact, so distorted from the doubling down of their margins into the rock that the true character ofnbsp;the plant could hardly be made out from this specimen. Fortunatelynbsp;the imprint given in PI. XLII, Fig. 5, has one leaflet, the lower right-hand one, that possesses still enough of its original character to givenbsp;a good idea of it. All the others on this specimen are imperfect.nbsp;Even this best-preserved leaflet has the lower portion of its basenbsp;doubled under and hidden in the rock, and the outer or lower marginnbsp;is also slightly bent down into the rock. Still, from this and othernbsp;leaflets seen, a good deal of the true nature of the fossil can be madenbsp;out. The character seems to be as follows:

The stem is rather stout. The leaflets had a rather thick, leathery texture, as they leave a black, shining film. On this specimen they arenbsp;nearly opposite in position. The exact mode of attachment, owing tonbsp;distortion, can not certainly be made out, but they appear to be insertednbsp;on the upper face of the stem, slightly within its margin. The attachment is made by the lower portion of the base of the leaflet, which isnbsp;prolonged down the stem, making the leaflet decurrent. The uppernbsp;portion of the base is larger and in the form of a rounded ear, whichnbsp;is free and curves more or less freely to the stem. The leaflets arenbsp;subrhombic and slightly falcate in form, with obtuse tips. They werenbsp;about 2 cm. long from the attachment to their tips, and 1 cm., or a littlenbsp;more, wide. The nerves are rather strong. They radiate from thenbsp;point of attachment and fork repeatedly. The branches curve stronglynbsp;away from the central line of the leaflets, so that they meet its marginsnbsp;under a large angle. There is no true midrib, but the central nervenbsp;is stronger than the others and splits up into branches, which, in turn,nbsp;fork several times.

This plant may be a fern. It is certainly not Albertia. It is much like Otozamitamp;i Beanii {Oyclopteris Beanii of Lindle}^ and Hutton),nbsp;being near the smaller form given in Foss. Flor. of Great Britain,nbsp;Vol. I, pi. xliv.

PI. XLII, Fig. 5, gives the form with attached leaflets, one of which is better preserved than any in Emmons�s figure, and Fig. 6 is a partial restoration of this, enlarged two diameters to show the nervationnbsp;and probable original character of the leaflets.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cycadites acutus Emm.: Geological Beport of the Midland Counties of North

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cycadites acutus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 114, fig. 81.

In American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 114, fig. 81, Emmons describes a plant which he calls Cycadites acutus. There is in the collection anbsp;specimen which is clearly the original of fig. 81. The figure gives thenbsp;general aspect of the plant fairly well, but it is erroneous in somenbsp;points. The leaflets are not quite so stiff looking and thick as thenbsp;figure shows them. None of them have their tips preserved, whereasnbsp;the figure represents several retaining their entire original length.nbsp;The leaflets were probably wider originally than they appear to benbsp;now, as their margins are slightly doubled under in the shale by pressure. The specimen shows that the general form, mode of insertion,nbsp;and falcate curvature of the leaflets are w'ell represented in Emmons�snbsp;figure. The point in which the figure is most misleading is the midnerve of the leaflets. It is wider than is given in the figure. Thenbsp;midrib might, as now seen, be exaggerated by pressure. It seems tonbsp;separate the leaflets from base to tip into two narrow parts, whichnbsp;look like two very narrow leaflets, so that they appear to be placednbsp;in closely approximate pairs.

1883. Cycadites tenuinervis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol.

Three specimens of a cycad were found in Emmons�s collections that are exactly like Cycadites tenuinervis, a plant found in the Older Mesozoic of Virginia, and not hitherto noted in the North Carolina beds.nbsp;They show the falcate curvature of the leaflets and the slender, rathernbsp;vaguely defined midrib that are characteristic features of the Virginianbsp;fossil.

The specimens are portions of leaves, showing a number of closely placed leaflets, that, in the different imprints, show considerable variation in size. The smallest are about 1 cm long; the longest are 2 cm.nbsp;in length. They are widest near their bases and taper gradually tonbsp;their ends, which are lancet-shaped and rather obtuse. Emmons doesnbsp;not give their locality. The general aspect of the leaflets is much likenbsp;that of Ctcnophyllum Braunianmn var. /�, and, but for the midrib,nbsp;they might be taken as belonging to this plant. They have a thick texture and are about 2 mm. wide in their widest part.

Genus ZAMIOSTROBUS Endlicher.

1857. Lepidodendron sp. Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 124, figs. 93, 94 on p.

1883. Zamiostrobus virginiensis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

In the collection of Emmons there is an imprint of a cycadaceous form that seems to be identical with fossils found in the Older Mesozoicnbsp;of Virginia and named by me Zamiostroius virginiensis. The specimen has Emmons�s field label, marked Lepidodendron. From this henbsp;probably regarded this plant as of the same general nature as thosenbsp;fossils which he mentions on pages 124 and 125 of his work, as havingnbsp;the external marks similar to those of Lepidodendron. He gives figures of two of these (figs. 93, 94) and speaks of them as branching. Ifnbsp;they branch they are probably some conifer. The fragment seen bynbsp;me is a portion of an imprint of a stem or cone. Not enough is shownnbsp;to enable one certainlj^ to make out the size and shape of the original.nbsp;It seems to have been of small size. Its original shape seems to havenbsp;been oblong with at least one end truncately rounded off. To thenbsp;unaided eye the scars, which are of small size, appear as crescent-shapednbsp;depressions, transverse to the axis of the cone. Examined closelynbsp;with the help of a lens, they are seen to be leaf scars of the same character as those shown by Cycadeoidea JEmmonsi, but decidedly smaller.nbsp;They have their present form from having been distorted by pressure,nbsp;�which has caused a creeping of the rock matter in the direction of thenbsp;axis of the fossil, so as nearly to close up the scars in that direction.nbsp;It is quite possible that this is an imprint of a cycad trunk of the samenbsp;kind as Cycadeoidea Emmonsi. If so, this specimen must have been anbsp;still smaller trunk. It is noteworthy that both this fossil and thenbsp;Cycadeoidea are simply impressions, apparently made b3^ the suifacenbsp;of the organism. Most cycad trunks are petrifactions.

Class BENNETTITALES. FAMILY BENnSTETTITAOE^.nbsp;Genus CYCADEOIDEA Buckland.

Cycadeoidea Emmonsi (Fontaine) Ward.

1857. Impression or cast of a part of a trunk of a cycad Emmons; American Geology,

1883. Zamiostrobus Erninonsi Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

Emmons, in Pt. VI, pp. 123, 124, fig. 92a, gives a description of an imprint of a trunk of a small cycad which he does not name and fornbsp;which he gives no locality. The original of this is probably the formnbsp;given in Fig. 3 of PI. XLIII. If so, Emmons�s figure does not gi\mnbsp;a good representation of it, either for the shape of the trunk or fornbsp;the character of the leaf scars. Nearly the whole of the trunk is

^On the occasion of my visit to Williams College, mentioned above (p. 276), I found the original of Emmons�s fig. 92a, and after a somewhat careful examination of it, I took the following notes:

� This is nothing but a thin slab of light-colored shale bearing on its reverse side an impression of a very broad cycadean leaf. The slab is only 15 mm. thick. It is fissile and other plant impressions occur at other planes of cleavage within it, as seen by their projecting ends. On the side of thenbsp;cycad a label is glued, on which are written, probably in Dr. Emmons�s hand, these words: � Impression of a trunk of a cycad.�

The right half of the impression is dark or nearly black, due to a thin deposit of carbon. This is partly worn off by handling, but remains at the bottom of the depressions. On the left it graduallynbsp;fades out and probably never existed near the left margin. It is probable that the rounded conicalnbsp;form at the top and on the right side correctly represents that of the trunk, but on the left below thenbsp;slab is so broken as to carry away a part of the impression. The general concavity is slight, and if itnbsp;indicated the curvature of the surface the trunk would have been rather large, but from the smallnbsp;size of the scars and their spiral arrangement it seems to have been small, or not more than twicenbsp;the diameter of the impression.

With the exception of the abrupt break on the left the cleavage all round is in the nature of a diagonal cross fracture from one natural plane to the next below it, and although not shining seemsnbsp;to be a sUckenside. This condition gives the impression a sort of relief. It is evident that the top ofnbsp;the impression does not reach the top of the trunk, and the whole represents a small area of the sidenbsp;of a trunk near the top. It is difficult to determine the exact position of the axis, but the impressionnbsp;is probably nearly vertical. The impression is 7 cm. high and 6 cm. wide, maximum measurements.

The leaf scars are arranged in two spiral rows, those arising from left to right being nearly horizontal, but curving so as to have an angle near the summit of about 45�. The other set of rows are vertical at the lower end, but curve slightly to the left, reaching the summit at an angle of 10� ornbsp;The scars are very small and almost exactly rhombic,with a large difference between the long andnbsp;short sides. The long diagonal, which is usually nearly vertical, is about 7 mm. and the short, nearlynbsp;horizontal one 4 mm. The long side is nearly 5 mm. and the short side scarcely more than 3 mm.

The ramentum. walls are over 1 mm. thick, with a distinct central raised ridge, which probably represents a commissure. As the scars are depressions surrounded by these walls, it is evident thatnbsp;the bases of the petioles were present and rose above the ramentum walls, also that their outer endsnbsp;were convex, so as to produce these concave depressions.

There is nothing on the impression from which the existence of fruiting axes or buds can be

preserved so as to show its original dimensions and form. It was evidently unusually small, the height being only 6 cm. and the ma,xi-mum width probably 8 cm. A portion of the right-hand side is missing, so that the entire original width is not shown. The shape wasnbsp;approximately broadly elliptical or bulbous. At the top is what seemsnbsp;to have been the growing bud. This appears to have been pressednbsp;down upon the sandy shale, which has preserved the imprint. It isnbsp;merely an imprint, and not, as is commonly the case, the petrifactionnbsp;of the trunk itself. The leaf scars are remarkably distinct, and theynbsp;are rather small, as might he expected from the size of the trunk.nbsp;They are approximately rhombic in form, about 6 mm. long and 4 mm.nbsp;in height, the longer dimension being transverse to the axis of thenbsp;trunk. They have a raised margin surrounding a depressed rhombicnbsp;space. The upper and lower angles of the scar are moie oi lessnbsp;rounded and the lateral ones drawn out. The form clearly belongs tonbsp;a new species of the group Cycadeoidea.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;_

infetred. The irregularity in the lower right-hand corner seems to be the result of defective preservation,�

The specimen was sent to the University of Virginia, along with the other types requiring to be drawn, and came back to Washington with the rest. It was very carefully drawn by Mr. F. von Daehen-hausen of the Division of Illustrations of the United States Geological Survey, under my immediatenbsp;supervision and with the aid of all the descriptions and figures that had been made of It, includingnbsp;Professor Fontaine�s fresh notes and my own, as quoted above. We fully discussed the question ofnbsp;orientation, especially in view of the fact that Professor Fontaine, in copying Dr. Emmons�s figures,nbsp;had reversed it, believing that Dr. Emmons had misinterpreted its nature. I have recently had occasion to examine and minutely describe several hundred specimens of cyeadean trunks from thenbsp;Mesozoic deposits of the United States, especially from the Potomac formation of Maryland, the Lowernbsp;Cretaceous of the Black Hills, and the Jurassic of Wyoming (see infra., pp. 382-117). I also psited in 1894nbsp;the principal museums of Europe where collections of such trunks exist, notably the British Museumnbsp;atBouth Kensington and the Geological Museum at Bologna, and I have thus made myself somewhat familiar with the nature of these objects. I was satisfied at a glance at Emmons's figure thatnbsp;he was right In regarding the impression as that of a trunk, and so stated early in 1894 (Proc. Biol.nbsp;Soc. Washington, April 9, 1894, Vol. IX, p. 86).

It is true, as Professor Fontaine remarks, that such trunks are usually petriflcations, having somewhat their original form and three dimensions, whereas this is only a flat impression similar to that which

Class GINKGOALES.

1883. Baiera multifida Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, pp. 87,118, pi. xlv, fig. 3; pi. xlvi; pi. xlvii, figs. 1, 2; pi. liii, fig. 1.

Emmons gives a description in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 127, iig. 96, of a fragment, which he calls Noeggerathia striata. In Mon. U. S.nbsp;Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 118, I expressed the opinion that this is anbsp;portion of Baiera multifida., a plant found in the Older Mesozoic ofnbsp;Virginia. I did not find in the collection the original of Emmons�snbsp;figure, but did see a fragment with Emmons�s field label marked Baiera.nbsp;This specimen, given in Fig. 4, is too poorly preserved to permit a positive determination of it. It is a carbonaceous film that shows nonbsp;nerves, but only striation. It may be a Baiera, but it is most likely anbsp;stem of some kind.

Class CONIFERvE.

There is in Emmons�s collection a fragment of slate carrying an impression of a conifer. It is without label, and there is nothing tonbsp;show the locality yielding it. It is, however, apparently from Lock-ville, to judge from the character of the rock. This plant impressionnbsp;does not seem to have been described by Emmons, as it is distinctlynbsp;different from any of those given in American Geology, Pt. VI. It isnbsp;nearest to Emmons�s Pachypteris, but is not this plant. The fossil innbsp;question is apparently a new species of Cephalotaxopsis, much like G.nbsp;magnifolia of the lower Potomac formation, and it may be the ancestral form of that plant. The following description of it may be given,nbsp;based on the fragment of an ultimate twig 1 cm. long, which is thenbsp;only portion of it that was found:

lAs the type of Emmons�s Noeggerathia striata was not found at Williams College, it can only be admitted with doubt into the synonymy, and the names left as they were.

linear in form, with apparently subacute tips. The textuie was and leathery. The maximum length of the leaves is 4 cm. and thenbsp;maximum width, which occurs near their bases, 4 mm. They nairownbsp;gradually toward their tips and more suddenly at their bases, whicnbsp;are elliptical in form. They are apparently attached by a very short,nbsp;twisted petiole. The midnerve is rather slender but distinct, and it is

%s. T2, 73, a description of a plant which he calls ^YalGhia long%fohm, saying that it is common at Lockville. There are in his collection anbsp;number of specimens, including apparently the original of pi. iva, butnbsp;not those of figs. 72 and 73. If, however, that is the original of pi. ivu,nbsp;it does not show so much of the plant as is given in this plate. Possibly it may have been broken since it was drawn. In Mon. U. b.nbsp;Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 107, I stated that I thought that this plantnbsp;is Palksya Braunii. A study of the specimen confirms me in thatnbsp;opinion. The plant was evidently, as Emmons states, common. cnbsp;largest impression of it is that given in Fig. 1 of PI. XLIV, which isnbsp;the supposed original of Emmons�s pi. iva. It shows a principal stemnbsp;to which a penultimate twig is attached on the right-hand side. Therenbsp;are several large penultimate twigs, so placed on this side that theynbsp;would unite with the principal stem if it were prolonged lower downnbsp;On the left-hand side there is a stout twig of penultimate order thatnbsp;apparently once joined the main stem lower down. The smaller stemsnbsp;are more or less thickly clothed with leaves. Most of the leaves, however, which were present when the fragment was entombed a\ e isnbsp;appeared. The appearance of the fossil indicates that the mam stemnbsp;and its branches were all thickly clothed with leaves of the same character. The larger stems are represented mainly by their imprmts, bunbsp;in some places a portion of the woody matter remains, whichnbsp;times carries leaves on its sides. The leaves are distichous in enbsp;plane of cleavage of the rock. They vary slightly in dimensions andnbsp;shape. The longest are 15 mm. long, and 1 mm. wide m their widestnbsp;portion, which is at the base. Some, however, are 5 mm. shorter, andnbsp;some are rather wider and tend to an elliptical form. Perhaps somenbsp;of these variations are due to distortion. The normal leaves are in

in texture, slightly falcate, linear-lanceolate, narrowing to a subacute tip, and widening to their bases. They are slightly decurrent, withnbsp;their bases overlapping one another. There is a slender but distinctnbsp;midnerve. These leaves are strikingly like those of P. Bratmii, givennbsp;by Saporta in his Flore Jurassique, Pal. Franfaise, Vol. Ill, pi.nbsp;Ixidii, figs. 2, 3. There is little doubt that the plant is that species.nbsp;PI. XLIV, Fig. 2, represents an ultimate leafy twig, with leaves ofnbsp;the largest size, and PI. XLV, Fig. 1, shows a portion of a stem ofnbsp;largest size, which still retains remains of leaves. These are pressednbsp;close to the stem and their shape is disguised. On his field labels, onnbsp;some specimens, Emmons has written Voltzia aeutifolia Brongn. Nonbsp;plant of this name is mentioned in American Geology, Pt. VI, and henbsp;probably changed it. The specimens so marked are Palissya Brauniinbsp;{P. spJienolepis)., with leaves somewhat shorter and smaller than thenbsp;normal ones.

To judge from the large number of specimens in Emmons�s collection, the most abundant conifer in the North Carolina beds is one with minute leaves that he in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 105, pi. iii, fig.nbsp;2, describes as WalcJda dijfusm. It is the same as the plant that henbsp;describes as Walchia gracile in the same work, p. 108, fig. 75. Innbsp;Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 106,107, discussing Walchianbsp;diffmtis, and aided only by Emmons�s figure, I regarded this plant asnbsp;probably a Palissya, suggesting that it be called P. diffusa. In thenbsp;same monograph, p. 108, I gave the opinion that Emmons�s Walchianbsp;gracile is a small form of Gheirolepis Muensteri., as I then thought thatnbsp;Palissya brevifolia was that plant. A careful inspection of the fossilsnbsp;leads me to think that the Walchia gracile is a small form of the rathernbsp;variable Pal�sya diffma. This latter plant is of the same generalnbsp;type as P. Braunii and P. hrefoifolia, although it differs decidedlynbsp;from them in some points. It is probable that the abundance of thisnbsp;plant in the fossils collected is, in part, due to the nature of the tissue.nbsp;The leaves are thick and leather-like, so that they remain in the formnbsp;of a dense shining film that may be peeled off like paper from thenbsp;stone. They seem to have been very durable. Only fragments ofnbsp;penultimate twigs, carrying numerous ultimate twigs, were seen. I didnbsp;not see the original of Emmons�s pi. iii, fig. 2, but one of the specimens seen, that given on PI. XLV, Fig. 2, of this paper, is as large asnbsp;that. Emmons�s fig. 2 gives the facies of the plant very well, and showsnbsp;accurately the appearance of the leaves on the ultimate twigs, withnbsp;their characteristic curvature away from the stems, but he does not

give the midrib of the leaves, which is distinct, although slendei. He gives on the main stem leaves that are longer and straighter thannbsp;those on the ultimate twigs, I did not see such leaves. They aie notnbsp;well preserved on the main stems of the specimens seen, but appear tonbsp;be of the same nature as those on the smaller twigs, although somewhat larger. For a plant having such small leaves and slender ^ti-mate l)ranehes the penultimate ones had remarkably large stems. nenbsp;was seen 7 mm. wide. The plant may be described as follows;

Steins of the penultimate branches veiy stout and rigid. Ultimate branches numerous, closely placed in one plane, alternating with onenbsp;another on opposite sides of the penultimate stem. They are slendernbsp;and rather short, about 55 mm. long, with tips not preserved, and verynbsp;uniform in length. They are thickly clothed with leaves on very slendernbsp;stems. These ultimate branches have sometimes short lateral branches,nbsp;with rather smaller leaves. These leaves, and those toward the tipsnbsp;of the ultimate branches, are smaller than the normal ones on thenbsp;tatter, and are often shorter, more distinct, and broadly elliptical, sometimes almost circular in form. The normal leaves on the ultimatenbsp;branches are about 1 mm. wide and 3 mm. long. They are ohlong-elliptical in form, with very obtuse tips. They curve strongly awaynbsp;fyoiii the stem, so as to stand almost at right angles with it. The mid-I'ih is distinct. As in the Palissya, above described, the leaves arenbsp;tlecurrent at base, so as to overlap one another and cover the stem.nbsp;All the leaves are remarkably firm and leathery in texture.^ PI. XL ,nbsp;Fig. 3, gives a penultimate twig smaller than that shown in Fig. 2.

1883. Cheirolepis Muensteri Font, non (Schenk) Schimp.: Older Mesozoic Flora of V ir-ginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 108, pi. Hii, fig- 3.

i'he original of Emmons�s WalcMahrevi/olia, as described in Ameii-can Geology, Pt. VI, p. 107, tig. 74, was not seen in his collection at Williams College, but there are in it specimens of a plant that agrees sonbsp;closely with it that there is little doubt that it is the same species. Thisnbsp;fossil has no label showing its locality, but it occurs on rock exactly likenbsp;that from Lockville which contains Falissya Braunii {F. sphmolepzs).nbsp;Ouly one specimen of it was seen. The specimen is a fragment of anbsp;penultimate twig, with a portion of several ultimate branches. All thenbsp;branches contain leaves. The ultimate twigs are fully clothed with well-preserved ones. This plant clearly belongs to the same genus withnbsp;fbe fossil above described as Falissya sphenolepis, and the leaves havenbsp;tbe same arrangement and mode of attachment as those of that fonn.nbsp;lu other respects they are different. They are much smaller. The

largest are 5 mm. long and a little over 1 mm. in width. In form they are linear-oblong, with obtuse tips. They are in two rows, with slightlynbsp;decurrent bases that overlap one another. The leaves are slightlynbsp;falcate and their texture is thick and leathery. They have a distinctnbsp;but slender midnerve running to their tips.

To judge from the portions of ultimate twigs that are preserved, they must have been long and slender. It is possible that this may be a smallnbsp;form of Palissya JBraunii, but the differences in the leaves are too manynbsp;and great for one to regard it as a species. It seems best to regard itnbsp;as a species of Palissya, retaining Emmons�s specific name hrevifolia,nbsp;which is applicable. In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 107,nbsp;108,1 stated that 1 regarded it as Cheirolepis Muensteri Schimp. Thisnbsp;opinion was based on Emmons�s figure of the plant, which makes thenbsp;leaves too acute at their tips and misses their shape.

There are two previously described plants which are sufficiently like this fossil to suggest an affinity, but not specific identity. One isnbsp;Cyparissidium septentrionale (Agardh) Nath.� The form shown innbsp;Nathorst�s fig. 10 is most like our plant. The other is Palissya con-ferta Feistm.^ Feistmantel�s fig. 6, pi. xlv, gives the form of P. con-ferta that is nearest to the North Carolina fossil.

1833. Araucaria percgrina L. and H.; Foss. FI. of Great Britain, Vol. II, p. 19, pi. Ixxxviii.

1870. Pachyphyllum peregrinum (L. andH.) Schimp.: Trait� de Pal�ontologieV�g�tale, Vol. II, p. 250.

1884. Pagiophyllum peregrinum (L. and H.) Schenk in Zittel; Handbuch der Palse-ontologie, Abth. II, p. 276, flg. 192a.

Emmons gives, on page 108, fig. 76, of his work, a description of a plant which he calls Walchia variabilis. The specimen figured by him,nbsp;and another containing a number of ultimate twigs of this conifer, arenbsp;in the Williams College collection. The imprint figured is 4 cm. longernbsp;than his figure represents it to be. In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol.nbsp;VI, p. 108, I stated my conclusion, judging from this figure, that thenbsp;plant is Pagiophyllum peregrinum, the Araucaria peregrina of Lindley and Hutton. An inspection of the original and of the other specimen confirms me in that conclusion. Emmons�s figure does not givenbsp;very well the facies of the specimen drawn. The facial leaves show

- Foss. FI. Gondw. Syst., Vol. I, Pt. II, Pal. Indica, 2d series, pp. 85-86, pi. xxxii, figs. 9, 10; pi. xlv, figs. 4-8, 8a; pi. xlviii, fig. 4.

on the upper surface of the twig, but they are not so close together or so conspicuous as is indicated in fig. 76. They are broadly elliptical in form, and are pressed close to the stem. No doubt the ellipticalnbsp;form is due to the pressure. They are really of the same characternbsp;as the lateral ones or those that lie in the cleavage plane of the rock.nbsp;These latter are very thick and leathery in texture, with more or less'nbsp;of a triangular form. They are veiy wide toward the base and decurrent, while toward their ends they narrow rapidly and are incurvednbsp;at their tips. They are markedlj^ uniform in shape. Thej- have anbsp;strong midnerve, which becomes very much stronger at the base. Thenbsp;second specimen now in the Williams College collection is a largenbsp;fragment of a very fissile, argillaceous sandstone, of fine grain, thatnbsp;contains a number of fragments of ultimate twigs, with numerousnbsp;leaves, mostly lateral or in the plane of cleavage. These twigs shownbsp;very well the character given for the lateral leaves. They seem tonbsp;have been quite long, and when covered with their thick, leather-likenbsp;leaves, must have been rope-like. Some of the twigs on this fragmentnbsp;are represented on PI. XLVI of this paper.

1883. Palissya carolinensis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol.

In American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 112, fig. 80, Emmons described a fragment of a conifer which he regarded doubtfully as a Pachypteris.nbsp;In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. lOL, I suggested that thisnbsp;plant is a Palissya, and that it might be called P. carolinensis. Thenbsp;original of Emmons�s figure is in the Williams College collection, andnbsp;is the only specimen of the plant there. It is very imperfect, showingnbsp;only a fragment of a stout ultimate twig, from which most of thenbsp;leaves have been removed, those remaining being fragmentary.nbsp;Emmons�s figure does not give very accurately the character of thenbsp;plant. PI. XLVII, Fig. 1, is given to represent it. As Emmons states,nbsp;the stem is strong. It is even stronger than is represented in hisnbsp;figure. The leaves are short, very thick, and coriaceous in texture.nbsp;They are of the same width from base to tip, and at each end arenbsp;abruptly and obtusely rounded off. They are attached by a shortnbsp;petiole and the midnerve is very strong and continuous to the end ofnbsp;the leaf. The leaves seem to be arranged in two rows, which lie'innbsp;the same plane. Only the lowest right-hand leaf is entire enough tonbsp;give an idea of its character. This, however, has its base defective,nbsp;as it has been crushed down on the stem, and it is broken across

about midway of its length. The leaves, however, were probably originally not much longer than this, and had pretty much thenbsp;same shape. The plant is apparently an Abietites not hithertonbsp;described, and it may be called Abietites carolinensis.

PLANTS OF DOUBTFUL AFFINITY.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenoglossum quadrifolium Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sphenoglossum quadrifolium Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 131, pi.

1883. Actinopteris quadrifoliata Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S.

Emmons gives, in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 134, a description of a plant which he calls Spkemglossum qnadrifoliwn. He gives anbsp;figure of the plant in pi. v, fig. 2. Of this plant he says: �The layernbsp;upon which the plant is preserved is soft, and hence has suffered fromnbsp;abrasions; but many specimens were found in the upper marl}^ sandstone (Keuper), some single, some in two, and others with three leaves,nbsp;and the base of the fourth. One is therefore restored in the figure. �

In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 120,121, I expressed the opinion that the plant is probably an Actinopteris and suggested thatnbsp;it be called Actinopteris quadrifoliata.

In the Emmons collection at Williams College there is a specimen of this plant, the only one seen. It shows one nearly complete leafnbsp;and fragments of two others. They are wedge-shaped and groupednbsp;around a central point, which seems to be the top of a stem. Therenbsp;is a vacant space which seems to have been occupied by a fourth leaf,nbsp;for it is placed like the leaves that are present, and the size of it suggests a missing leaf. If there had been originally a fourth leafnbsp;present they would have stood opposite one another and the fournbsp;would have nearl}^ filled a circular space, with their edges almostnbsp;touching. The specimen contains now no trace of carbonaceous matter of the leaves; only an impression of them is shown. This may benbsp;the original of Emmons�s figure. I could, however, see no trace of thenbsp;fourth leaf mentioned by Emmons as showing its base. I am not surenbsp;that the original termination is now shown on the most complete leaf.nbsp;If so, then it would be rounded in the form depicted in Emmons�snbsp;figure. The leaves show distinctly only striations. There are obscurenbsp;indications of nerves. If these really are nerves, then they radiate innbsp;fan shape from the base of the leaf, repeatedly forking like those ofnbsp;the living Gingko. PL XLVII, Fig. 2, represents the specimen seen.

A single specimen of an impi�int of Emmons�s plant Comepliyllum cristatum was seen in his collection. It bears his field label with thatnbsp;name. It may be the original of his fig. 97 of the plant described innbsp;American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 128. If so, it does not agi�ee in somenbsp;points with the figure given. This may be due to the splitting ofl' ofnbsp;some portions of the shale after the drawing was made. The specimennbsp;as it now exists does not show any stem, and the narrow basal portionnbsp;of the supposed leaf and the imprints Emmons supposed to benbsp;nerves, that curve to the leaf, are wanting. The imprint is too vaguenbsp;to show, with the small amount of material, the character of the plant.nbsp;Hence I leave it with Emmons�s name. The fossil seems to be anbsp;bundle of narrow pine-like leaves, each with a single nerve, thatnbsp;diverge .from a common point and curve around to the right. Thenbsp;group gives the appearance of a cock�s tail. There is no trace of anbsp;membrane or lamina between the leaves. The linear imprints are notnbsp;nerves, but appear to be acicular leaves. It is most like Schizolepisnbsp;Braunii and may be that plant. PI. XLVII, Fig. 3, represents thenbsp;specimen.

1866. Lepacyclotes circularis Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, p. 332, pi. ill, fig. 4.

1857. Lepacyclotes circularis Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 130, pi. iii, fig. 4. 1883. Araucarites carolinensis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. �. S.nbsp;Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 119, pi. xlix, fig. 8.

1856. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Lepacyclotes ellipticus Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of

1857. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Lepacyclotes ellipticus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 129, fig. 98; pi. iii,

1883. Araucarites carolinensis Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 118, 119, pi. lii, figs. 4, 4a.

Emmons describes certain singular plant fossils in American Geolog}^ Pt. VI, p. 129, as a new genus, which he calls Lepacyclotes. He gives

two species, L. ellipticus and L. circvlaris. These he describes on p. 130. In fig. 98, on p. 129, he gives a representation of a completenbsp;form of L. ellipticus, and in pi. iii, fig. 6, he depicts two scales of it.nbsp;In pi. iii, fig. 4, he represents a complete specimen of L. circularis.nbsp;The genus he describes as�

A disk or discoidal plane, formed of distinct and separate wedge-form grooved scales, arranged in a circle or ellipse, and the scales terminating outwardly in triangular laminae, and forming around the main disk a collar of pointed scallops.

Disk elliptical, scales attached to an elliptical nucleus. Disk supported by or attached to a stem, which passes through the middle in the direction of its long axis.nbsp;The number of scales of the disk is from twenty to twenty-four. The stem is notnbsp;always visible.

Disk or circle, formed of scales, as in the preceding, but they appear to radiate from its center. In this specimen a dark-colored, flattish, or circular body is connected to the central termination of the scales, which may have been the fruit ornbsp;seed.

There are certain facts connected with this plant, which are not rationally explained, on the natural supposition that they are analogous to the cones of pines or fruitbearing bodies; for the same species of disks with their scales occur, which are lessnbsp;than half an inch in diameter, and in another instance the disk is formed of threenbsp;concentric tiers of scales, the center one similar to the figure given, but the outernbsp;one bordering it, formed of shorter scales. It is 7 inches in diameter, and another,nbsp;formed of a single row of scales, is 5 inches in the longest diameter.

In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 118, 119, I stated my opinion that these fossils are cones of some conifer near to Araucaria,nbsp;the cones being mashed flat in the direction of their longer axis. Inbsp;also stated my belief that the two supposed species are the same.nbsp;This opinion of the fossil was based upon the assumption that Emmonsnbsp;found the imprints, commonly, in the complete state figured, with thenbsp;features given in the descriptions.

There are in Emmons�s collection numerous specimens of these fossils, some of them still bearing his field label, with the name Lepacy-clotes. 1 examined them carefully and could And no specimen anything like his fig. 98. One specimen, that given in PI. XLVH, Fig. 4, of this paper, is evidently the original of pi. iii, fig. 4, which represents Emmons�s L. circularis. The other specimens are either thenbsp;so-called scales detached, or attached to a circular or elliptical ring.nbsp;Only a few of the latter kind were seen, and in no case was the ringnbsp;complete. It is evident that the exact shape, whether it be circularnbsp;or elliptical, is not significant. They both were originally circular,nbsp;and the elliptic form comes from distortion. The detached parts, the

so-called scales, are far the most common forms of the plant, and Emmons has collected a large number of them. In order to give somenbsp;idea of the fossil, it will be best to begin with the detached, singlenbsp;object, which, for convenience of description and for lack of anbsp;name, we may call a scale. There is no evidence, however, that it isnbsp;a scale like that of the cone of a conifer. The epidermal tissue of thenbsp;scales, which is in many cases preserved, is exactly like that of Equi-setwn Rogersii, which is seen when the exterior surface of the sheathsnbsp;of this plant is shown. One of the scales is represented in PL XLVIl,nbsp;Fig. 5, which gives a complete form, as made out from a number ofnbsp;imperfect ones. The scale is long and narrow, graduallj^ diminishingnbsp;from one end to the other, so as to have a wedge shape. The broadernbsp;end has a curving cord-like termination, which may or may not havenbsp;attached to it a patch of epidermal tissue, which is approximately triangular in form. From the broad end it narrows graduall}quot;, as stated,nbsp;to greater or less lengths, and in the case of detached single scalesnbsp;terminates with no particular shape. The detached scales have verynbsp;varying lengths, which seem to depend upon the accidental mode ofnbsp;preservation, rather than upon any definite original length. Whennbsp;the scales are grouped and attached they, with the single exception ofnbsp;the disk depicted in PI. XLVIl, Fig. 1, have their narrower endsnbsp;radiating from a poorly defined depressed ring, which is apparentlynbsp;the imprint of a hollow cylinder, which stood at right angles to thenbsp;plane of cleavage of the shale. This ring may be approximatel3' circular or elliptical. It is of various sizes, and there is no indicationnbsp;that the space within it ever contained any carbonaceous matter.nbsp;Figs. 1 and 2 of PL XLVIII give portions of such rings, with scalesnbsp;radiating from them. These are the most complete specimens seen,nbsp;and the nearest approach to Emmons�s L. ellipticus that were seen.nbsp;In each scale there is a keel that starts in the cord-like rim of itsnbsp;broad end. Where it springs from the rim it is verj^ broad, but narrows suddenly^, and then continues narrowing veiy gradually^ until itnbsp;disappears toward the narrow end of the scale. These keels looknbsp;much like casts in relief of the depressed lines of the sheath of Equi-seUim Rogersii that run down between each tooth. From an examination of all the specimens I got the impression that Emmons�snbsp;L. elliqyticus, when most complete, is composed of more or less closelynbsp;placed scales, radiating from the central rim, and having their cordlike terminations at the free ends connected more or less fully^ to formnbsp;an outer ring. It is, of course, difficult to judge of the correctness ofnbsp;Emmons�s description and figure of L. elliptiem unless one knowsnbsp;what he actually' saw. It also makes a great difference in judging thenbsp;character of a plant if one collects the specimens himself. Much maynbsp;be seen in the rock that is ruined in collecting, and much that is significant mav be neglected. Hence I feel a hesitation in coming to a

conclusion in this ease. If, however, I must judge from the specimens, I think his fig. 98 is ideal in large part and is a restoration that is erroneous.

The specimen of Z. circularise given in Fig. 4 of PI. XLVII, and which, as stated, is probabh^ the basis of Emmons�s description quotednbsp;above, differs from the forms he calls Z. ellijjticus. The imprint isnbsp;on a piece of rather soft shale, which, in the vicinity of the fossil, hasnbsp;a tendency to split off. It apparently has split away to some extent,nbsp;canying off a portion of the disk-like fossil, so that at present onlynbsp;a portion of the imprint is shown. Evidently it was originalljquot; a complete circle, 4 cm. in diameter This circle has at its circumference anbsp;depressed cord-like groove, which corresponds to the cord-like elevated line seen at the tips of the scales of Z. ellipticm. On thenbsp;exterior of this depression there is a faint indication of a raggednbsp;fringe of epidermal tissue, but there is nothing definite like the circlenbsp;of triangular teeth given by Emmons. Within the marginal circlenbsp;there are narrow wedge-shaped imprints of the same general characternbsp;as those of the scales of Z. ellipticus, but much smaller and less distinct. These imprints converge to the center of the circle, touchingnbsp;one another, so that they completely fill the circular space whichnbsp;forms the disk composing the fossil. The imprints of the scales seemnbsp;to have keels like those of Z. ellipticus, but they are much less distinctnbsp;and moi�e slender. These imprints of scales disappear under an irregularly shaped patch of coal, in the form of a structureless layer, whichnbsp;is located around the center of the disk. This layer once evidentlynbsp;extended over the whole disk, but it has suffered much from handling,nbsp;so that only a patch of it remains toward the central part of the disk.nbsp;It is thickest on its outer edges, and thins away to nothing in thenbsp;center of the disk, where the scale shows through it. There is onnbsp;these imprints of scales no epidermal tissue like that on the scales ofnbsp;Z. ellipticus. The dark-colored, flattish, or circular bodiq mentionednbsp;by Emmons as connected with the central termination of the scales, isnbsp;apparently this patch of coal. It presents no appearance of beingnbsp;a fruit or seed, but is without structure, and has no significant shape.

The great variation in the diameter of the disks mentioned by Emmons, varying from half an inch to 7 inches, and the fact thatnbsp;three concentric tiers of scales were found on one disk, indicate thatnbsp;the plant is not a cone or inflorescence. Heer gives, in Flor. Foss.nbsp;Helvetia', Die Pflanzen der Trias, .some figures of Equisetum that maynbsp;throw some light on these North Carolina plants. In pi. xxvi, fig. 2,nbsp;he gives a diaphragm of Equisetum with its disk striated by lines narrowing from the circumference, converging toward the center. Thenbsp;outer margin of the disk has three concentric rows of triangular teeth.nbsp;PI. xxvii, fig. 2, gives a diaphragm in the form of a disk composed ofnbsp;ribs, which radiate from a central area, bare of carbonaceous matter.

Taking everything into consideration, I think that the detached scales, and those that radiate from a central ring, called Z. ellijMcus,nbsp;are dissected stems of Equisetum Eogersil. They seem, while standing erect, with their lower portions buried in mud and partijs filled withnbsp;the same, to have had the part above the mud crushed down by pressure in the direction of the axis of the stem. This split up the freenbsp;end into strips. The forms such as are depicted in Fig. 4 of PL XLVIInbsp;are detached diaphragms of the same Equisetum.

THE SOUTHWESTERN AREA.

We will next consider the extensive beds chiefly in New Mexico and Arizona, but probably reaching into Texas on the east, and certainlynbsp;found in the State of Sonora, in Mexico.* They are doubtless also thenbsp;equivalents of beds much farther south, near the City of Mexico andnbsp;in Honduras, from which fossil plants have been reported.**

1 The following correspondence shows that the localities in Sonora are by no means exhausted, and it is much to be hoped that the plant-bearing beds may yet be traced across the Rio Grande intonbsp;Texas:

Dear Sir: Some time ago Prof. I. C. White sent me a small box of fossil plants, obtained by Mr. Diimble, from Mexico. There were some six or eight species, mostly new. To judge from anbsp;slight study of them, I was struck with the perfection of their preservation and the adaptation ofnbsp;the slate to give good specimens. I sent a letter, through Professor White, saying that I thought thenbsp;nearest plants to them were Newberry�s New Mexican copper mine fossils. As the material was sonbsp;promising and seemed to yield so many good plants, I asked Mr. Dumble if he could get more specimens. I send you his reply. Please return it after reading. The slate splits almost like roofingnbsp;slate, and seems full of plants. A good collection of it would, I think, help immensely to our knowledge of the Triassic flora of America, giving splendid material.

Dear Sir: Dr. I. C. White has inclosed me your letter of July 3. The plants are from the Triassic coal beds of Sonora, Mexico, the most of them being from La Barranca, where I am now working,nbsp;and only a few miles from the locality at which the plants described by Dr. Newberry were collected. I have been unable to secure a copy of his paper, but a list of his determinations is given bynbsp;Aguilera in his Geological Sketch of Mexico, and I have copied it in my Notes on the Geology ofnbsp;Sonora, New York meeting of the A. I. M. E., of which I will send you a copy as soon as my separates arriv�. The field is a very interesting one, as it contains large bodies of anthracite coal andnbsp;of natural coke. I have found no less than 31 distinct beds of coal, the most of which are morenbsp;than 4 feet thick. The igneous rock has been forced in along the bedding planes and producesnbsp;quantities of excellent coke, one bed of which I have opened to a depth of 130 feet and find it hasnbsp;an average thickness of over 8 feet. The slates are filled with well-preserved plant impressions andnbsp;there are many large silicified tree trunks in the sands.

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;will probably spend the next winter in the field, and if you would like to study the plants wenbsp;can probably arrange to get you as large a collection as you can possibly wish.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;See a letter from Professor Fontaine in the Eighth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, for 1886-87,nbsp;Washington, 1889, p, 825, relative to a collection made in the vicinity of the City of Mexico andnbsp;brought to Washington by Senor Mariano Barccna in 1884. In 1890 Senor Castillo brought anothernbsp;collection, which I examined, and Castillo and Aguilera, in their Bosqiiejo Gcol�gico de Mexiconbsp;(Boletin del Institute Geol�gico de M�xico, Nos. 4, 5, and 6, Mexico, 1897}, p. 203, give a list of thenbsp;species which they were able to identify from these beds. See also Dr. Newberry�s article in the Am.nbsp;Jour. Sci., November, 1888, 3d series. Vol. XXXVI, pp. 342-351, pi. viii.

According to the collection of fossil plants made by the officers of the United States Army, the beds of coal which are found at Eaton Mountain, on the route from Missouri to Santa Fe, and at Muddy Eiver, on the route to Oregon, have been recognizednbsp;as also belonging to the Jurassic epoch (p. 43).

On his map he colors a small area, on the one hundred and fourth meridian and on and below the thirty-eighth parallel of latitude, whichnbsp;falls chiefly in the State of Colorado, but probably extends into Newnbsp;Mexico.

His extended paper in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of France^ is not a translation of the work already mentioned. It wasnbsp;communicated to the society on May 21, 1855, and contains the general results of three expeditions made by him to the West between thenbsp;jrears 1848 and 1854. In treating of what he calls the �terrain dunbsp;nouveau Gres Eouge,� he mentions the occurrence on one of the littlenbsp;aflluents of the False Washita River, near Antelope Hills, of a silici-fied tree which had preserved the branches adhering to the trunk, andnbsp;which, when polished, presents sections having the greatest resemblancenbsp;to those of Pinites Flmrotii (p. 869). As near as can be judged fromnbsp;his description, this locality is in the western part of Indian Territory,nbsp;or possibly in the Panhandle of Texas, and simply shows the extensionnbsp;of these deposits to the eastward.

One often meets in the sandstones of this stage abundant d�bris of silicifled wood, frequently whole trees; thus on the western slope of the Sierra Madre, between Zuninbsp;and the Little Colorado River, I encountered a veritable silicifled forest, with trees 30nbsp;to 40 feet long, divided into sections 6 to 10 feet in length, and having a diameter ofnbsp;3 to 4 feet. The cellular tissue has almost entirely disappeared and the wood hasnbsp;been replaced by a very compact silex, extremely brilliant in color, presenting magnificent specimens for jewelry work. The Indians of this region make use of themnbsp;for stone ornaments and also chip arrow heads from them. These trees, some ofnbsp;which are seen erect embedded in the sandstone, almost all belong to the family ofnbsp;conifers, some to that of ferns with arborescent trunks, and to Calamodendron.

In his Geolog}^ of North America,^ published the same tmar, he speaks, on page 67, of finding at his camp No. 28, at Alamo, near thenbsp;Rio Puerco, �numerous fragments of fossil silicifled trees,� in a graynbsp;marl which he refers to the Upper Cretaceous, but says that the campnbsp;No. 28 �is again on the New Red Sand.stone rocks.�

lA Geological Map of the United States and the British Provinces of North America, with an Explanatory Text, etc., Boston, 1853, pp. 42-44.

^R�sum� explicatif d�une carte g�ologique des �tats-Unis et des provinces anglaises de PAm�rique d.u Nord. avec un profil g�ologique allant de la vall�e du Mississippi aux c�tes du Pacifique et unenbsp;planche de fossiles; par M. Jules Marcou: Buil. Soc. g�ol. de France, 2d series. Vol. XII, 1854-55,nbsp;pp. 813-936.

^Tagebuch einer Reise vom Mississippi nach den K�steii der S�dsee, von Balduin M�llhausen, Leipzig, 1858, p. 300.

gives a somewhat glowing account of what he saw in the valley of the Rio Secco (which is probably the Rio Puerco), accompanied by a colorednbsp;plate, representing a prostrate trunk broken into sections and a stumpnbsp;or short projecting upright portion. Such sights are now knowm to benbsp;common throughout that region. Specimens of this petrified woodnbsp;procured by him were conveyed to Europe and placed in the hands ofnbsp;Dr. G�ppert, who subjected them to microscopic examination, andnbsp;furnished a short report as to their internal structure and probablenbsp;nature, which was published as a note at the end of this volume, onnbsp;page 492.^ Only one species was distinguished from this material,nbsp;which was identified as belonging to the genus Araucarites, and whichnbsp;in a footnote he named, after the explorer, Araucarites Medlhamianus.nbsp;He did not, however, furnish the character, and it remains a nomennbsp;nudum.

In the geological report made by Dr. J. S. Newberry in what is known as the Macomb Report,^ impressions of leaves or plants othernbsp;than fossil wood are first mentioned (p. 69). Of the 14 species ofnbsp;fossil plants described in this report,^ only 2 were found within thenbsp;territory of the United States, the rest having all come from Sonora,nbsp;in Mexico, collected at a point called Yaki. The American speciesnbsp;were found in and about the copper mines in the vicinity of Abiquin,nbsp;New Mexico, and there is little doubt that the Sonora specimens represent a western extension of the same great formation (see supra, p.nbsp;315, for later development of these beds).

Dr. Newberry�s geological report of the Macomb expedition forms a volume by itself. It was prepared soon after the close of the expedition, but owing to the breaking out of the civil war it was not published until 1876. It consists chiefly of an itinerarj'. On page 69 henbsp;refers to the fossil plants from the copper mines near Abiquiu, andnbsp;makes the following remarks:

The most interesting incident of our visit to this copper mine was the discovery in the shale roof stone of thousands of impressions of plants, of which abundant specimens were procured. They are mostly cycadaceous�Otozamites and Pterozamites�nbsp;with a few conifers (Brachyphyllum and Voltzia?). The species are probably new,nbsp;and will not afford the means of determining with precision the age of the stratumnbsp;containing them, but the discovery is of great geological interest, as showing thenbsp;wide distribution of the cycadaceous flora of the Triassic and Jurassic epochs, andnbsp;gives additional confirmation of the generalization of Brongniart, who characterizednbsp;this epoch in the botanical history of the world as the reign of Gymnosperms.

Descriptions of these plants will be found in another chapter, where it is showm that the most conspicuous species {Otozamiles Macombii) is the same with one found

^Ueber die von M�llhausen mitgebrachten Fragmente des Holzes aus dem versteinerten W'alde, von H. K. G�ppert.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Report of the Exploring Expedition from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Junction of the Grandnbsp;and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado of the W^est, in 1859, under the Command of Capt. J. N.nbsp;Macomb; Geological Report by Prof. J. S. Newberry, Geologist of the Expedition, Washington, 1876.

in the Triassic strata of Los Bronoes, Sonora, where it occurs in company with Pecopteris Siuftgardiensis, Txniopteris magmfolia, and other well-known Triassic plantsnbsp;of Virginia, North Carolina, and Europe. We have, therefore, in these plants evidence of the Triassic age of all the variegated gypsiferous rocks of Northern Newnbsp;Mexico; for the Lower Cretaceous sandstones immediately overlie the plant bed ofnbsp;the Cobre.

Ill this report Dr. Newberry mentions (p. 69) and figures (pi. v, figs. 4, 5; pi. vi, fig. 9) some twigs and cones of a plant that he doubtfullynbsp;refers to the genus Pachyphyllum, without assigning any specific name.nbsp;For more convenient reference I will supply a specific name here, andnbsp;as the genus Pachyphyllum is preoccupied and all the species are beingnbsp;referred to Heer�s substitute, Pagiophyllum, I will call the plantnbsp;Pagiophyllum Newherryi, assuming that the specimens all belonged tonbsp;one species, although they may have represented more than one.

Major Powell, in the Geology of the Uinta Mountains, 1876,^ was the first to give a local name to these extensive deposits. He callsnbsp;them the Shinarump formation, and thus describes them;

The summit of the Shinarump group is a series of gypsiferous sandstones exceedingly friable. They have often been called marls, and the separation between them and the massive vermilion sandstone is never very distinct. The difficulty is muchnbsp;greater where the gypsum disappears from the lower beds, as it does in places, wherenbsp;they are also found to be more indurated and more or less massive sandstones. Thenbsp;conglomerate which is found in the middle of the group is persistent over a very largenbsp;area, and the whole group is characterized throughout the entire province by thenbsp;occurrence of silicified wood in large quantities. Sometimes trunks of trees from 50nbsp;to 100 feet in length are found. The Shinarump conglomerate is usually very hard,nbsp;and weathers in such a manner as to form hog backs or cliffs, and the softer gypsiferous beds above, wffien carried away by rains, leave behind fragments of this silicifiednbsp;wood, so that the Shinarump conglomerate is often covered with great quantities ofnbsp;this material. Shinarump means literally � Shin-au-av�s rocks.� Shin-au-av is onenbsp;of the gods of the Indians of this country, and they believe these tree trunks to havenbsp;been his arrows (pp. 68-69).

As already remarked, the silicified wood, which is found in Arizona and New Mexico, has long been the subject of popular admiration, andnbsp;has been mentioned in many, periodicals ever since emigration commenced to cross the plains. Some of this petrified wood is very beautiful, admits of a high polish, and is capable of being worked into anbsp;variety of useful objects. Two large trunks of this material werenbsp;shipped in 1879 bjr the War Department to the Smithsonian Institution, an account of which will be found in Vol. V (1882) of the Proceedings of the United States National Museum, by Lieuts. J. T. C.nbsp;Hegewald and P. T. Swain.^

With regard to these silicified and agatized trunks, the economic point of view has been particularly dwelt upon by Mr. George F.

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Report on the Geology of the Eastern Portion of the Uinta Mountains and a Region of Countrynbsp;Adjacent thereto, by J. W. Powell. U. S. Geog. and Geol. Surv. Rocky Mountain Region. Washington,nbsp;1876, 4.�

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Information concerning some fossil trees in the United States National Museum, by Lieut. Col.nbsp;P. T. Swain, U. S. A., and Lieut. J. T. C. Hegewald, U. S. A.: Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1882, pp. 1-3.

Kunz in a series of notes and papers^ on jasperized and agatized woods of Arizona, and in his work on Gems and Precious Stones of Northnbsp;America, New York, 1890, pp. 135f�; more especially in the secondnbsp;edition, 1889, pp. 135, 137, and Appendix, pp. 352-355.

Portions of these trunks, which were long on exhibition at the National Museum, were examined by Dr. F. 11. Knowlton and found tonbsp;exhibit internal structure with sufficient clearness to be capable ofnbsp;microscopic study. Slides were prepared and' the results of his investigation were published in the Proceedings of the Museum.� Bothnbsp;trunks appear to have the same structure and belong to the same spenbsp;cies, and the generic determination was practically the same as that ofnbsp;M�llhausen, viz, Araucarioxylon, formerly called Araucarites. Butnbsp;as G�ppert failed to describe or figure M�llhausen�s specimens, it wasnbsp;impossible for Dr. Knowlton to tell whether he had the identical species or not; he was therefore obliged to give it a specific name, andnbsp;called it Araucarioxylon arizonicum.

A collection of fossil plants was made by Major Powell in the fall of 1886 in the vicinity of Abiquiu, New Mexico, among the coppernbsp;mines. It consists largely of vegetable impressions belonging to thenbsp;Cycadacese, etc. A second collection was made in 1889 by Dr. F. H.nbsp;Knowlton, both in the same region last mentioned and also amongnbsp;the petrified forests of Arizona and New Mexico. This latter collection is quite large and very important, especially that of the silicifiednbsp;wood, as he visited nearly all of the best localities, and with his practiced eye selected only such material as was capable of successfulnbsp;scientific investigation. The plant impressions of both these collections have been examined by Professor Fontaine, and Dr. Knowltonnbsp;has found the wood of the copper mines to be the same as that thusnbsp;far identified from the plains.�

There is no part of the American Trias that possesses greater interest for the geologist and paleontologist than this great southwestern area, and j^et we have, as the above record shows, exceedingly meagernbsp;scientific data respecting it. The petrified forests of Arizona are nownbsp;celebrated, and a movement has been set on foot to have the mostnbsp;important tract in that Territory set apart as a national park. Beforenbsp;I had heard of this movement I had planned to make at least a reconnaissance into the region on my return from the Pacific coast in the fallnbsp;of 1899, but before I left W ashington in August the matter had beennbsp;brought forcibly to my attention by a letter from the honorablenbsp;Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Secretary of the

1 Trans. New York Acad. Sci., Vol. V, 1885, pp. 9-11; Pop. Sci. Monthly. January, 1886, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 362-367 (copied in Scientifie American Supplement, Vol. XXI, February 6, 1886, p. 8418); Exchangers� Monthly, Vol. I, Nos. 6-8, 1886.

2New species of fossil wood (Araucarioxylon arizonicum) from Arizona and New Mexico, by F. H. Knowlton: Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XI, 1888, pp. 1-4, pi. i.

^ Notes on Triassic plants from New Mexico, by Wm. M. Fontaine and F. H. Knowlton: Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 821, Vol. XIII, 1890, pp. 281-285, pis. xxii-xxvi.

Smithsonian Institution, which the latter had referred to me. On stating my intention to visit the region, I was requested, and subsequently instructed, to collect data and make a report covering bothnbsp;the scientific and the practical aspects. This I did, and my reportnbsp;was submitted to the Director of the United States Geological Surveynbsp;on December 12, 1899.^

An account of the results of my operations in this field will have a considerably broader scope than that of the report just mentioned,nbsp;as they covered a large amount of territory more or less remote fromnbsp;the region popularly known as the petrified forests, extending as farnbsp;west as Supai, and north to the Grand and Marble canyons, includingnbsp;an expedition down the Litttle Colorado on its right bank to the crossing of the Lee�s Ferry road, 70 miles below� Winslow.

Owing to the almost entirely volcanic character of the great region occupied by the Bill Williams Mountain, San Francisco Mountain,nbsp;Kendricks Peak, and the Elden Mesa, it was impossible for me in sonbsp;short a time to work out the stratigraphy of that region, but that therenbsp;are Triassic remnants in it seems certain. Petrified wood was foundnbsp;at the most westerly point examined, viz, a mile northwest of Supai.nbsp;I was informed from a reliable source that large silicified logs occurnbsp;3 miles west of Williams.

The Colorado Plateau to the north, as is well known, is occupied by Carboniferous limestone, and this extends eastward to near the Littlenbsp;Colorado. Dr. Newberrv observed that this limestone�

descending from the San Francisco Mountain, * nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;*nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;* showed a dip to the

northeast of at least 100 feet to the mile; and before reaching the [Little Colorado] river it passed under beds of red shale and sandstone, which are conformable with it. This sandstone is deep blood red in color, is soft, and eroded into fantasticnbsp;blocks and masses, of which the surfaces are most curiously etched and carved bynbsp;weathering. Above these heavier beds are soft, red, argillaceous shales, with layersnbsp;of red and green, foliated, ripple-marked, fine-grained, micaceous sandstones, allnbsp;without fossils. Such is the geology of the south bank of the river. On the northnbsp;bank the red shales appear at intervals, but are usually concealed by alluvial soil,nbsp;sand, and gravel. About 7 miles from the river the valley is bounded by a mesanbsp;wall nearly 1,000 feet in height, of which the base is formed by the red shales andnbsp;sandstones before described.^

The party were then on the northeast side of San Francisco Mountain, and the Permian beds are reached some distance southwest of the Little Colorado. On the south side of the volcanic area, the principalnbsp;vents of which formed the San Francisco and Kendricks peaks. Mountnbsp;Sitgreaves, the Elden Mesa, and Bill Williams Mountain, no one seemsnbsp;to have reported any sedimentary strata higher than the Upper Carbon-

� Report on the Petrified Forests of Arizona, by Lester F. Ward, Paleontologist, U. S. Geological Survey; Department of the Interior, Washington, 1900; 23 pages, 8�.

2 Report upon the Colorado River of the West, explored in 1857 and 1858 by Lieut. Joseph C. Ives, Washington, 1861, 4�. Part III, Geological Report, by J. S. Newberry, p. 75.

iferous limestones which overspread the Colorado and Kaibab plateaus and stretch away for many miles to the south and southeast, but thenbsp;presence of Permian and Mesozoic remnants in many parts of thisnbsp;great Paleozoic terrane is one of the best-attested facts in the geologynbsp;of this region,' and its importance as constituting the principal evidence of the former integrity of the sedimentation over this entirenbsp;country has not been overlooked.

East of the volcanic area on its south side the descent to the Little Colorado is on an average about 40 feet to the mile, but the dip of thenbsp;strata is still greater, and the Carboniferous passes under the rednbsp;shales of the next overlying formation before the bed of that streamnbsp;is reached. This holds true for the lower portions of the river atnbsp;least as far northwest as the crossing of the Lee�s Ferry road, 30 milesnbsp;above its mouth.

I examined these red sandstones and shales on the left bank of the river from Winslow to a point 40 miles below, which practical!}' corresponds to the space between Camp 89 and Camp 85 of the Ivesnbsp;Expedition, and 1 found scattered blocks and small pieces of fossilnbsp;wood at many points. They were usually weathered out and lay onnbsp;the surface, and may have all been below the horizon in which theynbsp;were actually embedded, but the evidence that they belonged to thenbsp;formation in which they were found is strong. The fact that this woodnbsp;is not found on the Carboniferous terrane to the west, but is met withnbsp;only in the sandstones, confirms this view and makes the assumptionnbsp;that it belongs to a higher formation which formerly overlay themnbsp;improbable, to say the least. No such assumption could arise but fornbsp;the fact that almost all the geologists who have treated the regionnbsp;have referred these saliferous red sandstones to the Permian. If theynbsp;are such the wood also is probably Permian.

Below this point for many miles the east side of the valley is covered with a sheet of lava and black basaltic rock, and the surface on bothnbsp;sides is strewn with black bowlders of all sizes, which at Black Fallsnbsp;form the bed of the river. On the right bank, however, there arisenbsp;terraces several hundred feet high, presenting bold escarpments ofnbsp;brownish-red sandstones, with occasional white limestone and gypsumnbsp;beds and variegated marls. One of the gypsum beds is 10 feet in thickness. Petrified wood occurs at nearly all points, and I observed manynbsp;logs in place. Still farther down on the same side, and for more thannbsp;10 miles above and below the crossing of the Lee�s Ferry road, therenbsp;is an exceedingly interesting series of buttes, consisting of remnantsnbsp;of the mesa on the northeast, which rises in successive teri�aces somenbsp;thousand feet above the river bed, the nearest bluff being 150 feetnbsp;high. Scattered over the plain at its base, with a width of more than

'Tertiary history of the Grand Canon district, by Clarence E. Dutton: Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. 11, Washington, 1882 4�, pp. 46, 68, 117ff.

a mile, stand these symmetrical cones, buttes, and knolls of variegated marls, often almost wholly of blue clay. This blue-clay stratum, 20nbsp;feet in thickness, can be seen along the base of the general escarpmentnbsp;overlain by red marls, and these in turn by brown or reddish sandstones, the topmost stratum being a massive sandstone. The tallernbsp;buttes have the blue clay at the base and the red marls above.

Immense quantities of fossil wood occur on and around these eroded buttes, and in many cases large, much disintegrated logs occupy theirnbsp;immediate summits, and have been the occasion of their preservation.

At the foot of one of these buttes I found a specimen that I consider to be a petrified cone, but only the upper portion is represented fora length of 3 cm. It is somewhat compressed laterally, and thenbsp;longer diameter is 3 cm., while the shorter is only a trifle over 2 cm.nbsp;The transverse fracture is uneven, consisting of two unequal planes,nbsp;rising at difl'erent angles toward the apex and forming an obtusenbsp;reentrant angle on one side of the center, which passes across the conenbsp;in the direction of the minor axis. On the larger face of the fracturenbsp;the radiate structure is clearl}^ shown. The surface is occupied bynbsp;the thick, irregularly rhombic scales, arranged in quincunx order,nbsp;varying somewhat in size, but averaging 12 mm. wide by 8 mm. high,nbsp;and often showing the polygonal scars of the deciduous tips.

So far as the cone itself is concerned, it might, except for its small size, be referred to the living genus Araucaria, and the form and general appearance of the scales approach very close to those of A. cre-tacea Brongn., as figured by Saporta in Schimper�s Trait� de Paleontologie V�g�tale, Atlas, pl. Ixxvi, tig. 2 (see text. Vol. II, p. 256),nbsp;which comes from the Greensand (Neocomian) of Nogent-le-Rotrounbsp;(Eure-et-Loii�), in France. Considering the age of these beds, however, it is more probable that it represents the ancestral form of thenbsp;present genus, and it is safer to refer it to the extinct genus Arau-carites. I will give it the name Araucarites Chiquito^ wTich refers tonbsp;the Colorado Chiquito, or Little Colorado, on whose banks it wasnbsp;found, and also emphasizes its relatively small size.

That this cone was actually borne on some one of the many trees among the petrified remains of which it lay when I picked it up cannbsp;not, of course, be doubted, but it is equally obvious that no meansnbsp;are at hand for connecting it with specimens of wood collected at thenbsp;same time and place.

I also found in these denuded hillocks petrified bones. They come from the red marls over the blue clay, and were seen in place. Nonbsp;attempt was made to excavate the beds, but an expert collector ofnbsp;vertebrate remains could in all probabilit3f do this with success. Thenbsp;specimens collected were weathered out of the sides of the buttes andnbsp;lay at their base. Thej^ were mere fragments, but included one complete vertebra.

I Submitted the material to Mr. F. A. Lucas, curator of the Department of Comparative Anatomy in the United States National Museum, who kindly examined them and reported as follows:

The majority of the fragments are from a species of Belodon, apparently related to, possibly identical with, a peculiar genus and species (Ileterodontosuchus ganei Lucas)nbsp;described by me from the Trias of Utah. The Belodonta are Triassic.

There is also the vertebra of a small Dinosaur and two dermal spines of some Dinosaur, undescribed, but suggestive of a genus having some affinities with thenbsp;Stegosaurs.

The geological position of these beds is one of special importance, because, according to all the determinations hitherto made and all thenbsp;maps that have appeared, this locality would fall on the extremenbsp;western border of the Permian, next to the Carbonifei�ous and man}^nbsp;miles from the nearest Mesozoic deposits. As already remarked, thenbsp;red sandstones cross the river at this point and extend some distancenbsp;still farther to the southwest, but I did not attempt to follow them tonbsp;their contact with the Carboniferous, because at the time I wasnbsp;there I was not aware that the area had been mapped as Permian, andnbsp;assumed that the occurrence of Mesozoic strata there was what was tonbsp;be expected.

It was easy to follow the quite persistent bands of white, blue, red, and brown along the bluffs to the southeast. They dip very slightlynbsp;in the opposite direction, but the dip is less than the fall in the river,nbsp;and as a consequence the lower strata successively disappear in ascending the stream.^ Twenty miles above the crossing the blue clay wasnbsp;no longer seen and the red marls became the basal member of thenbsp;cliff's. This would give about 1 foot to the mile as the rate at whichnbsp;one rises in a southeasterly direction, which would make the lowestnbsp;beds at Winslow some 70 feet higher than those at the crossing of thenbsp;Lee�s Ferry road.

The course of the Little Colorado above Winslow is more westerly, so that Holbrook, 35 miles above, is only 8 miles farther south, andnbsp;the formation spreads out some distance on the left or south side ofnbsp;the river. Still its most important exposures are on the right bank,nbsp;and they occupy a broad area to the northeast, finally passing undernbsp;the higher Jurassic and Cretaceous beds of the Rabbit Ear Mesanbsp;region. The red saliferous sandstones are overlain by alternatingnbsp;marls and sandstones, but there is strict conformity, and if the formernbsp;are Permian we must have in this series the entire Triassic system,nbsp;because there is, according to all accounts, complete conformity, also,nbsp;of the overljdng beds.�

^ This fact was observed by Dr. Newberry, who says: � The fall of the river nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;* i.s somewhat

more rapid than the dip of the strata, so that, following it toward its sources, we M�ere constantly ascending in the geological series.quot; Ives Report, p. 74.

-See NeM^berry�s sections in the Ives Report, pp. 77-85, and compare Dutton, op. cit., Chap. XII.

As already remarked, fossil wood is almost universal. I examined a tine forest less than a mile from Holbrook on the first terrace abovenbsp;the valley below that place. The valley is here half a mile wide onnbsp;the north side. Most of this is occupied by an alkaline flat coverednbsp;with greasewoods and saltweeds. The bluff is 50 feet high and precipitous. Many chips and blocks of petrified wood lie about its basenbsp;weathered out, also detained in their fall at all elevations on the sidesnbsp;of the escarpment. The beds are brownish-red sandstones with thinnbsp;seams of white or blue clay shales. On top lie immense petrifiednbsp;logs in great profusion, usually much split and broken, sometimesnbsp;reduced to heaps of splinters. I collected a number of specimensnbsp;that seemed to show structure perfectly. In a few cases the wood isnbsp;red and jasperized. The hill back of the first terrace rises by anbsp;gradual slope for another 50 feet, and is chiefly covered by blownnbsp;sand, but as far as I went I found fossil wood wherever the surfacenbsp;was exposed. None of this material seems to be in place, and its truenbsp;source is probably still higher.

The junction of the Rio Ruerco with the Little Colorado is 2 miles above and nearly due east of Holbrook. There is running water innbsp;the latter at this point all the year round, but it all comes from a springnbsp;a few miles above, and from there on the Little Colorado is a dry runnbsp;except in the rainy season. The Rio Puerco is dry at its mouth andnbsp;for most of its length, but in most such streams Avater can be reachednbsp;by digging a few feet in the gravelly bed, and it is said that horsesnbsp;havm the instinct to paw out the graiml until they make a trough innbsp;which water will stand in sufEcient quantities for them to drink.

The Whipple expedition of 1853, in coming from Zuiii on the south, crossed the Rio Puerco at Navajo Springs and followed it down onnbsp;its right or north bank. It was some 20 or 30 miles above its mouthnbsp;that the party passed through the remarkable petrified forests described in the reports of Lieutenant Whipple and Mr. Marcou,^ andnbsp;also by M�llhausen, Avho accompanied the expedition. Here Avasnbsp;the Lithodendi�on Creek, named by Lieutenant Whipple (op. cit., Pt.nbsp;I, p. 73.), and so frequently mentioned in connection with the petrified forests of Arizona, but Avhich in reality is not located in the heartnbsp;of Avhat is now called the petrified forest, but is on the other side ofnbsp;the Rio Puerco and some distance farther west.�

1 Reports of Explorations and Surveys to ascertain the 3[ost Prat^ticable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, Vol. Ill, 1856, Pt. I, pp. 73-75; Pt. II, p. 28;nbsp;Pt. IAa pp. 43, 150, 151,167.

-It is difficult to identify on modern maps, but a careful study of the map accompanying- the Whipple report and of Lieutenant Whipple�s description given in the itinerary (p. 73) seems to require the assumption that his � Carriso Creek � is what is now called Dead Creek on the Land Office map,nbsp;and that Lithodendron Creek was what is now called Carrizo Creek or Carrizo Wash.

throughout the entire region and will be met with whatever route one may take, but there are differences in the degrees of abundance andnbsp;of perfection or intensit}^ of coloration of the wood at different pointsnbsp;or centers of accumulation. The climax in all these respects, so farnbsp;as has j^et been discovered, is reached in an area lying between thenbsp;Rio Puerco and the Little Colorado, but nearer to the former. It isnbsp;bounded on the east by the meridian of 109� 45' west from Greenwich, is nearly square, and its center falls in about latitude 34� 52',nbsp;longitude 109� 49'. Its western border is about 15 miles east of thenbsp;junction of the two rivers and IT miles east of Holbrook. Its northern boundary is 6 miles due south of the Ilio Puerco at Adamananbsp;Station on the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad. The area is about 8 milesnbsp;square and falls chiefly within township 17 N., range 24 E., butnbsp;extends a short distance on the south into township 16 N., and on thenbsp;west into range 23 E.

This region consists of the ruins of a former plain having an altitude above sea level of 5,700 to 5,750 feet. This plain has undergone extensive erosion, being worn down to a maximum depth ofnbsp;nearly 700 feet, and is cut into innumerable ridges, buttes, and smallnbsp;mesas, with vallej's, gorges, and gulches between. The strata consistnbsp;of alternating beds of variegated marls, sandstone shales, and massiAmnbsp;sandstones. The marls are purple, white, and blue, the reddish tintsnbsp;predominating, the white and blue forming bands of different thickness between the others, which give to the cliffs a liA^ely and pleasingnbsp;effect. The sandstones are chiefly of a reddish-brown color and closelynbsp;resemble the brownstone of the Portland and Newark quarries, or thenbsp;I�ed sandstone of the Seneca quarries on the Potomac River and atnbsp;Brentsville in Virginia, but some are light brown, gray, or whitish innbsp;color. The mesas are formed by the resistance to erosive agencies ofnbsp;the massiAm sandstone layers, of which there are seAmral at differentnbsp;horizons, and which vary in size from mere capstones of small buttes tonbsp;tables several miles in extent, stretching to the east and to the northwest.

The drainage of the area is to the south, and in the middle of it, haA�ing a nearly due southern course, but winding much among buttes,nbsp;IS the arroyo Avhich has been mistaken for the famous Lithodendronnbsp;Creek named by Lieutenant Whipple in 1853, as alreadv explained.nbsp;This arroyo or creek is dry most of the year, but has a graAmllj^ bednbsp;often 20 feet in width, and, as Avith many other streams in this region,nbsp;if holes are dug in this gravel to a depth of 4 or 5 feet water Avillnbsp;accumulate and stand in them.

The A'alley of this creek is narrow in the northern and central parts of the area and there are several short branches or affluents, but atnbsp;the southern end it broadens out and its rugged, spurred, and caiiAmnednbsp;slopes are highly picturesque. Here is located the principal petrifiednbsp;forest, and this is the region that has been characterized bA' some as

Chalcedony Park. The petrified logs are countless at all horizons and lie in the greatest profusion on the knolls, buttes, and spurs and innbsp;the ravines and gulches, while the ground seems to be eveiywherenbsp;studded with gems consisting of broken fragments of all shapes andnbsp;sizes and exhibiting all the colors of the rainbow. When we remember that this special area is several square miles in extent some ideanbsp;can be formed of the enormous quantity of this material that itnbsp;contains.

Although much fossil wood occurs throughout the whole region as above delimited, still for several miles to the north of this Chalcedonynbsp;Park it is less abundant, and it is not until the northern end of thenbsp;area is reached that another center of accumulation occurs. This liesnbsp;between two mesas, in a valley that opens out upon the general plainnbsp;which stretches north to the Pio Puerco. It is much smaller in extentnbsp;than the southern park, but substantially the same general features arenbsp;presented.

There is still a third center of accumulation, called the �middle forest,� which lies some 2 miles southeast of this last and extends tonbsp;the eastern margin of the general region. It occupies the westernnbsp;slope of the table-land on the east, and is very extensive, stretching anbsp;mile or more in a north-south direction and having a width of half anbsp;mile in places. It presents many interesting novelties.

All the petrified forests thus far described are, geologically speaking, entirely out of place, and the trunks bear every evidence of havingnbsp;dropped down to their present position from a higher horizon in whichnbsp;thej�^ were originally entombed and from which they have been subsequently washed out. Nor is their original position to be discovered bynbsp;ascending the several mesas included in the area, aithough some ofnbsp;these ilse 400 feet above the lowest ground. It is not until the stillnbsp;higher plateau is reached which bounds the whole region and lies morenbsp;than 700 feet above the valley that the stratum is at last found whichnbsp;actuall3r holds the fossil wood. A geologist might therefore traversenbsp;the entire area from north to south, visit all three of the principalnbsp;forests, and go out with the impression that everjAhing was out ofnbsp;place, and with no correct idea of the true source of the fossil wood.nbsp;Even on the east it would be difficult to settle this question, on accountnbsp;of the paucity of the trunks in that direction, but it could doubtlessnbsp;be done bj^ prolonged and careful search. On the west side, however,nbsp;and directlj^ west of the southernmost area, the plateau is only about 2nbsp;miles wide and has a western escarpment, with another valie\^ extendingnbsp;both south and west of it. This plateau or elongated mesa is highestnbsp;on its western side, rising to the 5,750-foot contour line immediatelynbsp;above the escarpment, and here is exposed a fine series of petrifiednbsp;trunks fringing the mesa, with many weathered out on the slope ornbsp;rolled down into the valley below. A few feet below the actual sum-

mit is a bed, some 20 feet thick, of coarse, gray, conglomeratic, cross-bedded sandstone, at many places in which were found, firmly embedded, logs and branches of the petrified wood, often projecting from it in the dill's, and clearty in place. This, then, is the true source of thenbsp;fossil wood, and after several days� study on all sides of the area Inbsp;became convinced that no other layer holds any of it, at least in thisnbsp;region.

This bed was found at nearly all points where the requisite elevation can be attained, but the petrified logs do not occur in the same abundance throughout. They are massed or collected together in groups ornbsp;heaps at certain points and may be altogether absent at others. Fromnbsp;their great abundance in the three areas above described, which maynbsp;be called the upper, lower, and middle forest, respectively, but in allnbsp;of which they are out of place and lie several hundred feet belownbsp;their proper position, it must be inferred that the stratum which heldnbsp;them was especially rich and that the trunks must have lain in heapsnbsp;upon one another. This bed maj^ have been considerably thicker innbsp;these areas than it is farther out on the margins where it is now foundnbsp;in place.

At only two points within the general petrified forest area did I find remnants of this bed which had not been broken down and disintegrated. One of these is at the extreme northern end, half a milenbsp;northeast of the upper forest. Here there is a small mesa, which liesnbsp;at an elevation of nearly 5,700 feet, or about 400 feet aboAm the valleynbsp;that contains the upper forest. It is isolated, and its nearly flat top,nbsp;Avhich is approximate^ circular, is about half a mile in diameter.nbsp;The coarse conglomeratic sandstone stratum, 20 to 30 feet in thickness,nbsp;occupies the summit of this mesa and is often hardened into rock, butnbsp;in all essential respects it is identical with that of the elongated mesanbsp;on the southwest side of the area above described. The petrified Avoodnbsp;is less abundant here, but suflicientl_y common, and is embedded in andnbsp;often projects from the sandstone ledges.

Besides the fact that this bed lies wholly within the petrified forest area, there is another important circumstance which seiums to giA^e itnbsp;special prominence. One of the most celebrated objects in this entirenbsp;region is the Avell-knoAvn �Natural Bridge,� mentioned by so manynbsp;travelers, consisting of a great petrified trunk lying across a can3�onnbsp;and forming a natural footbridge, on which men may easil}^ cross.nbsp;This occurs on the northeast side of the above-mentioned mesa, nearnbsp;its rim, and the bed in Avhich it lies is the coarse sandstone Avhich holdsnbsp;all the petrified Avood. The Natural Bridge therefore possesses thenbsp;added interest of being in place, Avhich can be said of Amry feAV of thenbsp;other petrified logs of this region.

It was obsei�Amd in the southAAmstern exposure and at other points that all the petrified logs and blocks l.ying in the sandstone or only

recenth^ washed out of it are surrounded by a coating of the sandstone firmly cemented to the exterior. The absence of this coating fromnbsp;�most of those in the principal forests is due to their long exposure tonbsp;climatic influences, which ultimatel3' disintegrate and detach the sand-rock adhering- to them and strip them clean to the bodj^ of the trunksnbsp;themselves. That this process requires ages of time is proved bjquot; thenbsp;fact that the Natural Bridge is still coated over a large part of itsnbsp;surface bjquot; the remains of the cemented sand rock in which it was oncenbsp;completeljr embedded. This is true chiefly of the lower portion, andnbsp;farther up the trunk it has nearly all disappeared. The trunk is in annbsp;excellent state of preservation and is complete to the base, where it isnbsp;abruptly enlarged and shows the manner in which the roots werenbsp;attached. This portion still lies partially buried in the sandstone,nbsp;which is the same in character as that which still adheres to the lowernbsp;20 feet. The canjmn or gulch has a due north direction and is verj^nbsp;precipitous, beginning only 200 j^ards above the bridge and rapidlynbsp;broadening in its descent. At the point where the bridge crosses it isnbsp;about 30 feet wide, but the trunk lies diagonal!}^ across and measuresnbsp;44 feet between the points at which it rests on the sides of the canjmn.nbsp;The angle is nearly 45�, and the tree lies with its roots to the southeast and its top to the northwest. The canyon is here about 20 feetnbsp;deep, and from its bottom and slopes several small trees are growing,nbsp;some of which rise considerably above the bridge. The trees arenbsp;mostljquot; cedars, but there is one cottonwood {Populus angustifolia).nbsp;The root is quite near the brink of the can3mn, but rests on a solidnbsp;ledge for a distance of 4 feet, so that there is no probabilit3^ that innbsp;this dry region it will be endangered by further erosion. The totalnbsp;length exposed is 111 feet, so that more than 60 feet of the upper partnbsp;lie out on the left bank of the can3-on. At about the middle of thenbsp;canyon, and above where the coating of sandstone still adheres, itnbsp;measures 10 feet in circumference, giving a diameter of over 3 feet.nbsp;At the base it is now 4 feet in diameter, but the thickness of the incrustation is not exactly^ known. At the extreme summit the diameter isnbsp;reduced to 18 inches. As in the case of practically^ all the petrifiednbsp;logs of the region, there are no indications of limbs or branches at thenbsp;top. The significance of this fact will be noted later.

A conspicuous characteristic of all the petrified trunks, not only of this area and of the general Triassic terrane of Arizona and Newnbsp;Mexico, but of all petrified forests, is their tendency to break acrossnbsp;into sections or blocks of greater or less length. All travelers havenbsp;remarked this, and the sketches given by Mollhausen and in the Pacificnbsp;Railroad reports show them thus divided. Some observers have notednbsp;the fact that the Natural Bridge has several of these transverse cracks,nbsp;and all the good photographic views of it show them. I counted four,

but most of them seem to be as yet onhquot; partial and probably do not extend entirely through the trunk. There is one, however, near thenbsp;left bank of the canjmn which has the appearance of doing so, and thenbsp;trunk is probably only kept from parting at this point by the mechanical adjustment which causes the adjacent faces to perform the officenbsp;of a keystone to an arch. Any considerable shrinkage due to climaticnbsp;or other causes would overcome this influence and the entire bridgenbsp;would crash to the bottom of the canyon and roll down the escarpment in a number of huge segments.

An examination of the relations of the Natural Bridge to the gulch which it spans shows clearly that the trunk was primarily entombednbsp;in the sandstone bed covering this entire region, and that, with thenbsp;progress of erosion, which ultimately carried aivay the entire plain tonbsp;the north as well as in other directions, leaving this small mesa, itnbsp;was at last exposed and lay for a great period near the rim of thenbsp;escarpment. At first it was only partially buried and later came tonbsp;lie on the surface of the ground. As the land rises somewhat to thenbsp;south of it rills were formed above, and in times of floods or heavy rainnbsp;it obstructed the flow of the water, forming a sort of dam. The waternbsp;lying against the trunk long after it had ceased to overflow it, tended tonbsp;disintegrate the rock upon which the trunk lay, until eventualh^ it foundnbsp;its waj^ through beneath the trunk at some one point. The smallestnbsp;opening of this nature would soon become a free passage for the water,nbsp;and a simple continuation of this process of local erosion would ultimately result in the formation of the entire gorge as it exists to-day.

The other case which I observed of the presence of the conglomeratic sandstone within the general petrified forest area occurs near its center, about midway between the upper and lower forests, along thenbsp;narrow portion of the valley of the creek above described, on bothnbsp;sides of the canyon and near the level of its bed, at an altitude of aboutnbsp;5,300 feet. The exposure is typical in all respects, and logs were seennbsp;projecting from the canyon walls, from one of which specimens werenbsp;collected. As this exposure is 400 feet below that in which the Naturalnbsp;Bridge occurs and 450 feet below that on the southwestern mesa, itsnbsp;presence there can be accounted for only on one of two hypotheses�nbsp;either that of the existence of another exactly similar stratum at thisnbsp;horizon, or that of a fault, or what would amount to the same thing, anbsp;slide or slipping down of a large block of the uppermost beds in suchnbsp;a manner as not to disturb their stratigraphical arrangement.

The first of these hypotheses is rendered improbable by the fact that a careful study of the beds at the same horizon in other places revealednbsp;no such stratum, and it could scarcely be so local as not to be foundnbsp;elsewhere. The second hypothesis seems in every way probable, as innbsp;such a much-disturbed region it would be easy for the erosive agencies

to undermine a small outlier or mesa and cause it to sink down intact to a lower level. The question, however, requires more detailed investigation than I was able to give it.

Leaving this phenomenon out of the account, therefore, and considering the two exposures in which there is no question as to their natural position, we may use them as a means of determining whethernbsp;the strata have any dip and to some extent in ascertaining the amountnbsp;and direction of the dip. The topographic map has a 250-foot contournbsp;interval, which is too large to be employed with any very great accuracy, and an aneroid can hardly be depended upon for measurementsnbsp;made six hours apart, as had to be done in this case, but, as nearly asnbsp;I could judge from all sources of information, the Natural Bridge mesanbsp;seems to be between 50 and 100 feet lower than the southwestern mesa.nbsp;As the distance is about 5 miles, the dip to the northeast is somewherenbsp;between 5 and 10 feet to the mile. As, however, the strike was notnbsp;accurately determined, there is no certainty that this is the true dip ofnbsp;the strata, and more precise observations on a much larger scale willnbsp;be necessary to settle this question.

Although there is nolonger any question as to the true stratigraph-ical position of these profuse vegetable remains, there are many facts which stand in the way of the supposition that the trees actually grewnbsp;where we now find them. Several accounts ^ profess that stumps occurnbsp;erect, with their roots in the ground, showing that they grew and werenbsp;buried and petrified on the spot, but I was unable to confirm any suchnbsp;observations, and on careful inquiry of residents of the country whonbsp;had mimxtely examined every part of the area I was unable to learnnbsp;of a single indisputable instance of such an occurrence. The onlynbsp;trunk that I saw standing on end was one that was inverted and hadnbsp;its roots high in air. In fact, from the nature of the case, as I havenbsp;just shown, there would be no use looking for any such phenomenon innbsp;any of the principal fossil forests, since they all lie from 100 to 400 feetnbsp;below where they were originally deposited. It is only in the beds ofnbsp;coarse sandstone that hold them, therefore, that the evidence need benbsp;sought. This I did with the utmost care, but even here I found nonbsp;example of an upright trunk.

In this, as I was glad to learn after my return on looking the matter up, I was only confirming the observations and conclusions of Dr. J. S. Newbeny, made in 1858 and published in 1861.�

I examined these specimens with some care to determine, if possible, whether they had grown on the spot, as those of Lithodendron Creek are supposed to have donenbsp;by the members of Captain Whipple�s party, or whether they had been transported

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;M�Uhauscn, loc. cit. Marcou. Bull. Soc. glt;5ol. France, 2d series, Vol. XII, 1855, p. 871. Repeated innbsp;Geology of North America, etc., Zurich, 1858, p.13.

to their positions. In all that came under my observation I failed to find any evidence that they had grown in the vicinity. All the trunks are stripped of their branches and exhibit precisely the appearance of those transported to some distancenbsp;by the agency of water. In confirmation of this view I should also say I found innbsp;the marls, with the entire trunks, rounded and water-worn fragments of wood, innbsp;some instances silicifled and in others converted into lignite.

I gathered the same impression from all the collections of silicified wood which I observed in this formation in western New Mexico, viz, that all had been transported, but not far removed from their place of growth.

Although it is easy to find petrified limbs and small twigs among the other objects, still these occur sporadically and accidentally at anynbsp;and all points. They are no more likely to be found beyond the termination of the tall trunks than anywhere else, as would be the case if thenbsp;trees lay near where they grew. In fact, it happened that I nevernbsp;found small twigs in this position, although I searched in hundreds ofnbsp;cases. I found no petrified cones, but I heard vague reports of theirnbsp;having been found. It would be strange if none were preserved innbsp;such a vast mass of trunks of cone-bearing trees.

Finally, the great abundance of the material would seem to negative the idea that it could have all grown on the same area. Even if everynbsp;tree had been preserved, there are places where it would have beennbsp;impossible for them to stand as thickly as they lie on the surface, notnbsp;to speak of the space that trees in a forest require in order to thrive,nbsp;as these trees evidently did thrive. And while there is now no placenbsp;where they lie so thickly in the original bed of sandstone, still, evennbsp;here they are not only all prostrate, but lie in little collections andnbsp;huddles, quite differently from what should be expected if they werenbsp;precisely where they grew.

The preservation of a forest in situ with the trunks erect could scarcely take place except by some sudden, commonly eruptive agency.nbsp;Such agencies have undoubtedly operated in the preservation of thenbsp;pi^trified forests of the Yellowstone Park, and of others that I havenbsp;visited in Wyoming and elsewhere, in which the stumps and sometimes tall trunks do stand in position with their roots in the ground,nbsp;but in the region under consideration there are only faint indicationsnbsp;of eruptive agencies, certainly not sufficient to account for thenbsp;phenomena.

The indications, therefore, all point to some degree of transportation of this material by water antecedent to petrifaction, and the great amount of it at this particular place argues for the existence there ofnbsp;such a condition as would arrest the process and cause the floatingnbsp;logs to accumulate in masses, as often happens in great eddies or thenbsp;deltas of rivers. The character of the bed in which they occur furthernbsp;supports this view. The coarse sapd and gravel, highly favorable tonbsp;the process of silicification. denotes the proxiinit}' of the land, and the

cross bedding bears witness to the existence of rapid and changing currents. As this stratum occupies the highest elevations in thisnbsp;region, the nature of the overlying beds is not revealed, and the question whether the period was followed b^^ one of general subsidencenbsp;can be settled only by a study of the higher plains lying some distancenbsp;to the east and north, but it is probable that the bed sank and thatnbsp;finer deposits ultimately buried it at the bottom of the Mesozoic sea,nbsp;there to remain until the Tertiary epeirogenic movement raised thenbsp;entire country from 5,000 to 6,000 feet above sea leve*l.

The Mesozoic beds, believed to be of Triassic age, in the vicinity of Taylorsville, Plumas County, California, and now generally knownnbsp;bj^ the name of that town, are the only ones of that age as yet knownnbsp;to me in California from which fossil plants have been collected.nbsp;Lying near the fortieth parallel, the region was naturally entered bynbsp;the geologists of the Fortieth Parallel Survey at an early date, andnbsp;those of the California State surveys also passed over it and madenbsp;important discoveries, including, approximately, that of the age ofnbsp;the rocks and some collections of animal fossils.

Dr. George F. Becker, in 1885,� mentions Triassic fossils from the Genesee Valley, Plumas County; and Prof. J. S. Diller, who madenbsp;his first excursion through this region in 1885, gave some account ofnbsp;it the following year.� Shortly after this the region was visited bynbsp;Prof. I. C. Russell, Prof. Alpheus Hyatt, Mr. H. W. Turner, and Dr.nbsp;Cooper Curtice, and large collections of animal remains were made.

Dr. Curtice, in 1890, and again in 1891, was successful in securing a few fossil plants, but all proved to be in an imperfect state of preservation. The localities from which Dr. Curtice obtained his plants, asnbsp;recorded on his labels, are as follows; �Hillside north of a hut nearnbsp;Mr. Forman�s house, near Taylorville,� 1890. �On trail oppositenbsp;Bostwicks Bar, near Reynolds Ferry, Stanislaus River,� 1891. �Sixnbsp;miles from Copperopolis, on route to Sonora, and on grade to Angelsnbsp;Creek,� 1891. �Stanislaus River, near canyon opposite mouth ofnbsp;Bear Creek,� 1891.

In 1891 Messrs. E. G. Paul and James Storrs made still another collection of fossil plants from the same general region, their labelsnbsp;giving the locality as �Formans, North Arm of Indian Valley, nearnbsp;Taylorville.�

All these collections came ultimatelj' into my hands, and every effort was made to determine them and ascertain their bearing on the age of

iln all collections from this place and in Professor Diller�s published papers the name is written Taylorville, but it is called Taylorsville in the U. S. Postal Guide.

2 Notes on the stratigraphy of California : Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 19,1885, p. 21.

^ Notes on the geology of northern California: Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 33,1886, pp. 9-21.

the beds. The first installment received was sent to Professor Fontaine for determination, and he reported upon it, under date of December 8, 1891, as follows:

I have carefully examined the small collection of fossil plants made by Mr. J. S. Diller in northern California, which you sent to me for determination.

The plants are very fragmentary, and most of them are poorly preserved. The most distinct are a small Equisetum and several ferns with small pinnules. The fernsnbsp;are the most numerous, but unfortunately they present mostly such portions as thenbsp;tips of pinnae and detached fragments of pinnae. The amount of material is notnbsp;sufficient to enable one to determine with positiveness their relations to previouslynbsp;described forms, for ferns are so notoriously variable in foliage that a considerablenbsp;amount of material is needed to make reliable determinations. Still, taking the collection as a whole, and looking to the nearest relationships with previously knownnbsp;fossil plants, w^e may arrive at some results with a considerable degree of certainty.

The plants are certainly younger than Paleozoic, and as the elements of the flora are ferns, equiseta, cycads, and conifers, with no trace of dicotyledons, they are Mesozoic, most probably older than Cretaceous, with the possible exception of its verynbsp;base.

Owing to the imperfection of the material and the absence of the type forms, I can not come to a positive conclusion as to the exact position in the Mesozoic of thesenbsp;plants, but I think the weight of evidence is strongly in favor of the flora beingnbsp;Ehetic or uppermost Trias.

The following enumeration of determinable forms will give the reasons for this conclusion:

1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Equuetuin Muemleri (Sternb.) Brongn.? This Equisetum is one of the most common and best-preserved fossils in the Forman slates. It has a small stem, the largestnbsp;imprints indicating a diameter not greater than one inch. The character of the teethnbsp;and the small size cause it to differ decidedly from the large equiseta of the Oldernbsp;Trias. There are no good characters separating it from E. Mvxnsteri, as figured l)ynbsp;Schenk in his Grenzschichten, while some of the imprints remind one of E. Lyellii.

2. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Podozamites or Pterophyllum. This is a strap-shaped fragment showing nonbsp;base and no tips. Hence its true place can not be determined. The nerves arenbsp;parallel, and appear to fork at one end of the leaf, which is probably the basal end.nbsp;The imprint is most probably that of a Podozamites, but it may be a Pterophyllum.nbsp;It seems to be very rare. �

3. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A small fern. This has very small pinnules shown on small detached fragmentsnbsp;of pinna?, which have the general aspect of those of a Pecopteris. They show nonbsp;nerves, and are granulated with what seem to be sori covering the surface of thenbsp;pinnules. This is probably the fructification of Acrostichites, to which genus we maynbsp;perhaps regard the fern as belonging. It is, however, smaller in pinnules than anynbsp;previously described Acrostichites. It is rare. ^

4. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A small fern. This, in the form of its pinnules, resembles a Sphenopteris, butnbsp;the fructified forms show the pinnules apparently covered with sori, producing anbsp;granulation, which makes this, too, probably an Acrostichites. The sterile pinnulesnbsp;of this fern remind one of Schenk�s Coniopteris Braunii.'^

5. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;A small fern. This has small pinnules, or segments of pinnse, which are in shapenbsp;similar to Acrostichites microphyllus of the Virginia Ehetic formation, as described innbsp;in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, V^ol. VI, but the species is a new one, with ultimate pinnaenbsp;shorter than those of any previously described Acrostichites. It seems to be clearlynbsp;an Acrostichites, for the fructified pinnules show the characteristic granulation. In

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Let this bear the name Acrostichites f coniopteroides Ward, u. sp.

the form of its sterile pinnules it is a good deal like Schenk�s Sphenopteris Rmseriiana, described in his Foss. FI. d. Grenzschichten. This is quite rare.^

6. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Acrostichiiesprinceps (Presl) Schenk? This fern is one of the most common andnbsp;best preserved. In both the shape of the pinnules and the granulation that coversnbsp;the fructified pinnules it agrees pretty closeh^ with Schenk�s Acrostichiies princeps, fromnbsp;the Ehetic of Europe. The pinnules, like those of the latter, are small, with marginsnbsp;more or less undulating, and when fructified, as they mostly are, they are coverednbsp;with sori. The amount of material does not suffice, I think, to make the identification irositive.

7. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sagenopteris or Cheiropteris. This is a fragrant of what seems to have been anbsp;rather large leaf with very thin texture. It shows a border which may be a portionnbsp;of the extremit}' of the leaf or of a lateral margin. The nerves are approximatelynbsp;parallel, thin, and not distinct. They anastomose at considerable intervals, so as tonbsp;give long meshes. The nervation seems nearer that of Sagenopteris than any othernbsp;fern. If it is a Sagenopteris the leaflets are larger than those of any described speciesnbsp;of that genus. Only one specimen was seen.*

According to this list, the plants now in question would seem to find their nearest affinities in the Rhetic flora of Franconia, as described by Dr. Schenk.

Professor Diller, in a paper published the following year,^ gives (p. 374) a condensed statement of Professor Fontaine�s report, but it hasnbsp;never before been published entire. Another collection was made innbsp;1893, but the material was even poorer than the rest, and it has beennbsp;impossible to determine it. The record will, therefore, have to closenbsp;with Professor Fontaine�s report above, but it is greatly to be hopednbsp;that some better locality may yet be found and further light shed onnbsp;the flora of these beds.

It is not, of course, proposed here to go over the ground so long under discussion relative to the Triassic deposits considered in the lastnbsp;chapter, although the Richmond coal field was first regarded by Rogersnbsp;as Oolite, and Mr. Marcou first referred those of the Southwest to thenbsp;Jurassic. This question we will consider as settled, and whether, withnbsp;Professor Fontaine, we place the highest of them in the Rhetic ornbsp;regard them all as more probablj- representing the Keuper, we maynbsp;at least include them all in the American Trias.

The deposits now to be considered are recognized bjquot; all as lying above these last, and the ones that have been under discussion are sonbsp;much higher that the question has alwaj-s been whether to regard themnbsp;as Jurassic or as Cretaceous. Neither do I now propose to open up thenbsp;questions relative to the alleged Jurassic age of the Potomac formation

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;From the large leaflets this may be called Sagenopteris f magnifoUola Ward, n. sp..

sGeology of the Taylorville region of California: Bull. Geol. Soc. America, Vol. Ill, 1892, pp. 369-394.

and of the ciT-ad-bearing- l)eds of the Black Hills (Lakota formation of Darton). The former of these questions has been much discussed andnbsp;it will suffice to refer to its recent literature.^

Mr. Jules Marcou, in a somewhat acrimonious article on the Triassic flora of Richmond, Virginia, published in 1890,� alludes (p. 161j tonbsp;a �Jurassic florida� found by Dr. Newberrj^ in 1858 at the Moquinbsp;Pueblo in New Mexico. Although I presumed he referred to Dr. New-berri^�s report in the Report of the Colorado Rivei- of the West bynbsp;Lieutenant Ives, 1861, still there was some uncertaintj^ and I thereforenbsp;called Dr. Newberry�s attention to the matter and asked him whethernbsp;he recognized any true Jurassic floras in America. There was somenbsp;further correspondence, and some extracts from his letters are wellnbsp;worth publishing in the present connection. He says:

The fossil plants to which you refer are described in the geological part of the Ives Colorado report, page 129, pi. iii. The deposit from which this handful of plantsnbsp;was .taken is quite near to the Moqui villages, a few miles south of the table-land onnbsp;which are situated the towns known as �Mooshanove� and �Shungopave,� and atnbsp;a point where the Moquis obtained clay for their pottery. The Dakota sandstone,nbsp;with its dicotyledonous leaves, rests on these clays and they contain much lignite;nbsp;below them are the highly colored marls which form the top of the Trias.

The Jurassic (�Atlantosaurus �) beds�sandstones and shales with Saurian bones� occur just beneath the Dakota and upon the Triassic marls 150 miles north fromnbsp;this locality, but they are fresh-water deposits and local. No Jurassic rocks havenbsp;been detected in that part of Arizona where these plants occur, and the Jurassicnbsp;rocks seem to thin out toward the south and not to cross the north line of Arizonanbsp;or New Mexico. At Abiquiu, 60 miles north and west of Santa Fe, the Dakota sandstone rests upon strata which contain unmistakable Triassic plants, but all are different from those at the Moqui villages. As that group of plants and the clay andnbsp;lignite in which they occur have not been recognized anyw-here else we are absolutely without proof of their age. Because these plants are different from thosenbsp;known to be Upper Triassic in New Mexico I have been inclined to regard them asnbsp;Jurassic, but have never asserted that they were such, nor indeed that they werenbsp;Triassic or anything else.

I have always been doubtful about the geological position of the lignites and the clay beds at the Moqui villages. This doubt is due to the facts that the lignite andnbsp;clay beds have not been identified elsewhere, and that the small number of plantsnbsp;obtained from them are different specifically from any found elsewhere in the world.nbsp;It will be impossible, therefore, for any man, however learned and wise, to assign annbsp;age to the Moqui florula without more facts to base a conclusion on.

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;never really regarded the Moqui plants as Cretaceous, because the beds which contain them are overlain by the Dakota sandstone, which, w-hen my report w-as written,

' See papers by Prof. O. C. Marsh lii the Sixteenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey lor 1894-95, Pt. I,

1896, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pp. 133-414; Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, October, 1896, pp. 29,5-298; November, 1896, pp. 375-377; December, 1896, pp. 433-447; Vol. VI, August, 1898, pp. 105-115,197; Science, N. S., Vol. VIII, Augustnbsp;6,1898, pp. 146-154�by G. K. Gilbert in Science, N. S., Vol. IV, December 11, 1896, pp. 87.5-877�bynbsp;Jules Marcou in Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. IV, September, 1897, pp. 197-212�by Robert T. Hill innbsp;Science, N. S., Vol. IV, December 18,1896, pp. 918-920; Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. IV, December,

1897, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pp. 449_469_by Lester P. Ward in Science, N. S., Vol. V, March 12, 1897, pp. 411^23; Nineteenthnbsp;Ann. Rept. �. S. Geol. Survey for 1897-98, Pt. II, 1899, pp. 521-946�by William B. Clark in The Physical Features of Maryland, Maryland Geological Survey, April, 1897,4��by Clark and Bibbins in Journalnbsp;of Geology, Vol, V, July-August, 1897, pp. 479-,506�by Arthur Hollick in Proc. Am. Assn. Adv. Sci.,nbsp;Vol. XLVII, 1898, pp. 292-293.

was supposed to be the oldest ineniber of the Cretaceous system on this continent. The question in my mind has been: Are they Jurassic or Triassic? No Jurassic plants,nbsp;unless these are such, have been found in America, and the Triassic flora of Abiquiunbsp;and Sonora is Keuper, so -there is a possibility, not to say probability, that we herenbsp;get our first glimpse of the flora which covered the land while the Jurassic limestones of the Black Hills and the Wasatch were accumulating in the sea, and thenbsp;Atlantosaurus beds were filling up fresh-water lakes around which was land that supported a luxuriant vegetation. This was so because the Jurassic fresh-water bedsnbsp;contain the remains of the largest herbivores known. Atlantosaurus was 100 feet ornbsp;more in length, stood 30 feet in height, and must have consumed several tons of vegetable tissue per day. This shows how much we have to learn in regard to the vegetation of our continent in geological times. Knowing the herbivorous character ofnbsp;the great Jurassic Dinosaurs, I have been on the lookout to find traces of their food,nbsp;but the Atlantosaurus beds, where I have examined them, contain no plants.nbsp;Somewhere they will be found, however, and I envy the man W'ho first gets a viewnbsp;of them.^

The localities where I have seen the fresh-water Jurassic strata are near Canyon City in Canyon Pintado, north of the Sierra Abajo and in South Canyon, near Glen-w'ood Springs. In none of the localities did I find any remains of plants, but I hadnbsp;very little time to look, and I beg you will make a note of these places, as well as thatnbsp;of the Moqui plants, as deserving of further search.

The so-called Jurassic florula lies in No. 15 of the section on pages 84 and 85; all above that is unquestionably Cretaceous. No. 14 is Dakota, as is proven by its numerous dicotyledonous leaves and by its relation to the overlying shales, which represent the Colorado group and contain its characteristic fossils. No. 12 of the sectionnbsp;on page 85 contains numerous plant remains, some of w'hich are represented on pi. iii,nbsp;but they have nothing to do with the flora found in the clays and lignites (No. 15)nbsp;which lie below- all the strata of the Moqui table-lands. Only the plants of which thenbsp;figures are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a on pi. iii are from this horizon. None of the plantsnbsp;taken from this stratum have been found elsewhere, so I can not say to-day any morenbsp;than when my Colorado report was written whether this florula is Jurassic or Triassic.

I have never asserted that it was one or the other, and no one else is warranted in taking any other ground than I took in that report, viz, that further collections mustnbsp;be made from this deposit before the question can be decided. I hope you will keepnbsp;the locality in mind and some time be able to send one of the employees of the Geological Survey there and gather more material. I shall be delighted if the flora of thisnbsp;deposit shall prove to be Jurassic, for as yet we have not obtained a glimpse of thenbsp;great flora that must have prevailed on this continent during the Jurassic age andnbsp;which afforded subsistence to the great herbivores, Atlantosaurus, Stegosaurus, etc.

Soon after this 1 had some correspondence with Professor Fontaine* relative to the probable affinities of the plants figured in the Ives report. He made a careful examination of the tigures and the text, andnbsp;wrote me as follows:

I have examined carefully the figures of the fossil plants described by Dr. Newberry in the Ives report on the Colorado River of the West, which are given on pi. iii, figs. 1-4, and have read all- that Newberry says about them. I should saynbsp;decidedly that they are neither true Triassic nor Rhetic in age, hut beyond this I cannbsp;not speak with conviction. There is not enough material figured to fix the characternbsp;of the flora, and the plants figured are not identical w-ith any described species known

^ Thi.s prediction has now been fulfilled by the discovery of the cycads and fossil wood described in this paper. L. F. W.

to me. Besides this, the notice by Dr. Newberry of the fossils found by him with these, but not figured, adds to the doubt in my mind.

Tile plant figured in figs. 1 and 2 is certainly not a Cyclopteris. It is probably a fern and, if so, has quite a modern look, resembling more than others some of thenbsp;living Adiantums. For shape it may be compared with the living A. asarifoliumnbsp;Willd., and for the possession of a basal midrib, with the living A. Wilsoni Hook.nbsp;It may, however, be some old Proteaceous type, for it has something of the habitnbsp;of a dicotyledonous leaf.

Figs. 3 and 4 probably represent a Gleichenia, and they look something like some of Heer�s forms from Rome, with, however, decided differences. If I were compelled to determine the age from the figured plants alone, I should say it is lowestnbsp;Cretaceous or Neocomian.

Newberry says that the dicotyledonous leaf given in fig. 6 comes from the lignite beds that furnished the other plants of the flora now in question (see p. 131, undernbsp;Phyllites venosissimus.)

The nervation and shape of this reminds me of some of the forms of Sapindopsis of the Potomac. If this leaf was really found in the lignite bed, and not higher upnbsp;m the Dakota group, its evidence would point to a Cretaceous age.

In connection with this I may refer to what Newberry says at the top of page 131, m closing his remarks on his Pecopteris cycloloha, the possible Gleichenia. He saysnbsp;of this plant that it is associated with Clathropteris of Jurassic affinities, and the first-appearing species of the dicotyledonous plants of the Cretaceous epoch, etc. Henbsp;does not put the lignite bed and underlying strata in the same group with the bedsnbsp;of the uppermost mesa, which yielded him dicotyledons, so that I infer that he meansnbsp;to say that he found dicotyledons with P. cycloloha, but I can not understand whynbsp;he does not lay stress on that fact. Again, on page 132, he mentions finding Clathropteris in the lignite bed, yielding the above-mentioned plants, but he says thatnbsp;the fragments were too imperfect for description. If this is in fact a Clathropteris,nbsp;then it would indicate strongly that the age of the bed is Jurassic. I w�ould suggest,nbsp;however, that under some conditions a Clathropteris might, if imperfectly preserved,nbsp;be similar to some imperfectly preserved dicotyledons, and these fragments maynbsp;be really no more Clathropteris than the dicotyledonous leaf given in pi. iii, fig.nbsp;5 is a Neuropteris.

Dr. Newberry, in his letter to you, in which he says that the plants were obtained in No. 16 of the section on pages 84, 85, seems to have forgotten the section obtainednbsp;at camp 92, before reaching the Moqui villages, given on page 81, where he found thenbsp;same plants as in No. 16, and he overlooked the statement made at the bottom of pagenbsp;13], which attributes Phyllites venosissimus to the same lignite bed. He says in his letter that only the plants figured in Nos. 1 to 4 come from this horizon. Are we to takenbsp;his present recollections or his statement made then? Of course the presence of thisnbsp;dicotyledon may be accounted for by supposing that it came really from the Cretaceous strata above, but got mixed up with the lignite plants.

Have you noted the fact that Newberry, on page 131, says that his Phyllites venosis-simus, pi. iii, fig. 6, comes from the beds with the supposed Jurassic plants? This Phyllites is apparently a dicotyledon like the Potomac Sapindopsis. Is what he says of the Clathropteris, page 132, all that is known of it? I wish I could feel sure that it is reallynbsp;a Clathropteris. It may be no more that plant than Neuropteris angulcUa, pi. iii, fig.nbsp;5, is a Neuropteris, for this is a small dicotyledonous leaf.

Now, if the supposed Clathropteris is really one, it would be w'orth more than his Cyclopteris and Pecopteris in deciding age. All the supposed Jurassic plants seem tonbsp;come from No. 2 of the section at camp No. 92 (see j). 81).

I am afraid that Cyclopteris moquensis (which is of course no Cyclopteris) and Pecopteris cycloloha will be of no help in making out age. Has it occurred to you that the plants may be Potomac?

I have been struck with the general resemblance that Newberry�s Cheiropteris Wd-liamsii bears to his Cydopteris moguensis from the Moqni villages. I refer especially to the specimen given in fig. 11, pi. xiv, of his recent paper on the Flora of the Greatnbsp;Falls coal field, published in the Am. Jour. Sci. (3d series, Vol. XLI, March, 1891).nbsp;The anastomosis of the veins of Chtiropieris Wdliamsii occurs at such long intervalsnbsp;that it might easily have been overlooked in Cydopteris moquensis.

From all this 1 think it may he safely concluded that the claims of any of these plant-bearing beds to a Jurassic age are very slender,nbsp;and it is probable that they are not Jurassic, whatever their real agenbsp;may be.

The following correspondence will give the history of the only other case within mjr knowledge of fossil plants occurring at a horizon whichnbsp;is near the boundary line between the Jurassic and the Cretaceous, andnbsp;the true position of which is not yet settled:

Dear Sir: I have forwarded to your address to-day four specimens of fossil plants collected by Mr. II. IV. Fairbanks in rocks underlying the Knoxville in California.nbsp;IVe are very anxious to know what they are and what their probable age is. Thenbsp;fauna associated with them is, peculiarly enough, rather of Cretaceous than Jurassicnbsp;aspect.

Would you kindly look at them and send me your opinion as soon as possible? Full credit will be given to you in a note to be published.

My Dear Sir: I am much interested in the specimens you send. I can hardly trust myself to determine them for you, and will take the liberty of sending them tonbsp;Professor Fontaine, who is working up all my collections from California. I obtainednbsp;several specimens in the Shasta group that somewhat resemble them, but I alsonbsp;found a very few imperfect impressions in the Mariposa slates that look like them.nbsp;1 presume it will turn out with the plants as Dr. Stanton says it has with the shells,nbsp;that they are not wholly diagnostic of the age of the beds. It seems to be a conifer,nbsp;perhaps the descendant of the old Voltzia and the somewhat later Palissya, foreshadowing the Lower Cretaceous Geinitzia and the more modern Sequoias. Butnbsp;what Professor Fontaine will call it I do not know'. It is a highly transitional form,nbsp;:and all your specimens are the same, I think. As soon as I hear from Professornbsp;Fontaine on the subject I will let you know'.

My Dear Professor Fontaine: I send you a little package containing four specimens of fossil plants from beds underlying the Knoxville of California. They were sent to me by Prof. John C. Merriam, of the University of California, with a letter,nbsp;of which the inclosed is a copy, which you need not return. I am as anxious as henbsp;to know what the plants signify. I got some things a little like them in my collec-

tion from the Knoxville beds, which are all boxed up and ready to go to you. I also got a very few' minute fragments of the tips of branches that resemble these fromnbsp;the true Mariposa beds (Jurassic). I hardly know what genus to refer them to.nbsp;Will you please look at them and see whether you recognize them readily, and saynbsp;what they seem to be most like?

The only Jurassic genus known to me that may contain these fossils is Elatides of Heer, provided we grant that he correctly places in it the leafy tw'igs, which henbsp;describes in Vol. IV, Pt. II, Flor. Foss. Arct., page 79, and figures on pi. xiv, figs. 6, 6b,nbsp;6d. Heer founded the genus on cones, but there is nothing except his experiencenbsp;to call for the association of these branches with the cones.

The leaves are most strikingly like those of Sequoia Reichenbachi, especially those of the Potomac form, which I made the variety longifolia (see pi. cxvii, fig. 8, ofnbsp;Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. XV). I see no difference. The leaves of Merriam�snbsp;fossils are probably not shown in their full width, ow'ing to imperfect preservation.nbsp;They appear fully as long as the longest of the Potomac form. They are too longnbsp;and narrow for the typical S. Reichenbachi. Clearly the plant is a Sequoia of thenbsp;Reichenbachi type, and if it w'ere a true S. Reichenbachi I do not think that wouldnbsp;forbid the conclusion that the strata are uppermost Jurassic, as this Sequoia persistsnbsp;so long. Still, under the circumstances, I w'ould not identify it with S. Reichenbachi,nbsp;even as a variety, but w'ould consider it provisionally a new species of the well-marked Reichenbachi type. It may be an ancestral form of that species. I do notnbsp;think that these fossils can throw' any light of value on the question of the age of thenbsp;beds. So far as they show any indication, they rather incline to lowest Cretaceous.

Washington, D. C., February 15, 1896. Prof. John C. Merriam, Berkeley, California.

My De.ar Professor Merriam: I return herewith, by mail, the fossils from beds below the Knoxville, and inclose Professor Fontaine�s report thereon. You will seenbsp;how nearly it agrees with what I said, and while it may not be very comforting, younbsp;can rest assured that it is the best that can be done in the present state of science.

I have talked with Dr. Stanton, who has seen the shells from the same beds, and he makes almost exactly the same statement with regard to them. He says theynbsp;rather point to lowest Cretaceous, and I think, perhaps, it may be safe to say thatnbsp;these beds form a transition from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous. However, I do notnbsp;feel confident, from the small amount of evidence which has thus far been produced.

As in the former case, so in this, while there is some doubt, the weight of evidence thus far appears to he against the Jurassic age ofnbsp;this plant-bearing deposit.

One of Mr. H. W. Turner�s assistants, A. I. Oliver, collected in 1894 in the Mariposa beds of California in Yaqui'Gulch, Mariposa County,nbsp;5 miles south of Princeton (Bullion Mountain), a small fragment of anbsp;fern, which came in due time into mv hands. In his letter, dated Jan-

uary 31, 1895, to the Director of the Survey, transmitting it, Mr. Turner says: �The age of the slates from which the specimen camenbsp;is Jurassic (Mariposa formation).�

In the early part of October, 1895, I joined Mr. Turner�s party for a time while operating in this same general region, having with menbsp;Mr. James Storrs, who was with Mr. Turner at the time the fern wasnbsp;collected, although neither of them were with Mr. Oliver when henbsp;found it. Still, the exact gulch in which it w^as found was known tonbsp;Mr. Storrs and we made a prolonged search for additional material.nbsp;The shales are so transformed that scarcely any impressions arenbsp;retained and w�e were mainly unsuccessful, but did find a few faintnbsp;impressions of a vegetable nature, one of which was a fern nearly asnbsp;well preserved as the original specimen. All this material, includingnbsp;the original specimen, was sent to Professor Fontaine, who reportsnbsp;upon it as follows:

I have examined the specimens of fossil plants collected from the Mariposa slates, near Princeton, California, They are very few in number and very fragmentary andnbsp;poorly preserved. The plant fragments before entombment had evidently driftednbsp;some distance. It is therefore not possible to make positive detenninations.

The specimen collected by Mr. Oliver, of Mr. Turner�s party, iir 1894, from Yaqui Gulch, Mariposa County, shows the end of an ultimate pinna of a fern. Severalnbsp;pinnules on each side of the rachis and the terminal one are preserved. No fructification is shown. The pinnules indicate that the plaiit is a Dicksonia. It agrees verynbsp;well, so far as the character is shown, with D. Saporiana Heer,^ from the Jurassic ofnbsp;the upper Amur of eastern Siberia, and may be provisionally identified with thatnbsp;species.

One of the specimens collected by Messrs. Ward and Storrs in 1895, at nearly the same place as the last, shows the terminal portion, in a small fragment, of an ultimate twig of some conifer. It has several leaves of thick texture placed in twonbsp;ranks on each side of the stem. They are widest at base, and decurrent, while theynbsp;narrow to an acute tip. The terminal portion of the leaves is strongly incurved afternbsp;the fashion of Pagiophyllum, to which genus it seems to belong. It resembles thenbsp;specimen of P. peregrinum, given by Saporta in Paleontologie Franfaise, V�g�taux,nbsp;Plantes Jurassiques, Tome III, Atlas, pi. clxxvi, fig. 3, and may be doubtfully identified with that species.

There is one other very problematic plant in that collection. It is a small bit of a twig, carrying on one side three small round bodies, which may be the cones ofnbsp;some conifer. They may be those of Leptostrobus. The mode of attachment andnbsp;form indicate this, and the plant, for the sake of a name, may be called Leptostrobus ?nbsp;mariposenm Font. n. sp.

On the 9th of October, 1894, Dr. T. W. Stanton, assisted by Messrs. Storrs and Oliver, made two small collections of fossil plants from thenbsp;blue gold-bearing shales on the Feather River, in Butte County, California, 4 miles above the town of Oroville, the true age of which was

1 Heer, Flora Fossilis Arctica, Vol. IV, Pt. II, pp. 89, 90, pi. xvii, figs. 1, 2; pi. xviii, figs. 1-3.

wholly unsettled. One of these collections was made at the stamp mill of the Banner mine, and the other half a mile south of the Bannernbsp;mine, on the right or north bank of Feather River. These collectionsnbsp;came to Washington, and were transmitted to me through the Geological Surve}�, bjr Mr. Turner, at the end of January, 1895, along withnbsp;the Mariposa fern above mentioned. They wmre sent to Professornbsp;Fontaine for determination on Api�il 9, and his report upon them bearsnbsp;date April 22, 1895.

In an article on the Age and Succession of the Igneous Rocks of the Sierra Nevada, ^ Mr. Turner, to whom 1 sent a copy of the report, published it in full (pp. 395, 396). Professor Fontaine�s conclusion, asnbsp;expressed in the last paragraph of this report, is as follows:

Faking all the evidence, I think it can be positively said that this flora is not older than the uppermost Trias, and not younger than the Oolite. I feel pretty sure thatnbsp;it is true Rhetic, somewhat younger than the Los Bronces flora of Newberry, and thenbsp;Virginia Mesozoic coal strata. It is much like the Rhetic flora of France, madenbsp;known by Saporta. At any rate, this is a new grouping of plants that certainlynbsp;deserves to be carefully collected. I do not think the fossils now in hand suffice tonbsp;fix narrowly the age, which may be lower Jui'assic.

While operating in the Sacramento Valley in the autumn of that same year, having Mr. James Storrs as my assistant, 1 thought best, in viewnbsp;of the meagerness of the previous collections and of the importance ofnbsp;this, the onl}^ paleontological evidence that these beds furnish, to visitnbsp;the localities and endeavor to obtain more and better material. W^enbsp;reached Oroville on September 25, and proceeded on the 26th to thenbsp;Banner mine. W^e spent three days in the work, first collecting fromnbsp;the dumps around the deep shafts, then on the bank of the river, withnbsp;some measure of success. At last we entered a deep ravine that leadsnbsp;from the mine to the river, and here we found the rocks far betternbsp;exposed and made a very fine collection, containing large slabs withnbsp;impressions of great spreading pimige of Ctenis, Ctenophyllum, Tieni-opteris. Macrotseniopteris, etc. Six large boxes were thus quicklynbsp;filled and were shipped to Washington, arriving in good condition innbsp;November.

I worked this material over with much care during the winter, and not wishing to reship it on account of its fragile nature, I arranged withnbsp;Professor Fontaine to come to Washington during his summer vacationnbsp;of 1896 and elaborate it in the United States National Museum. Thisnbsp;he did in July. As it would necessarily be some time before the drawings could be made and the first report published. Professor Fontainenbsp;consented to prepare a preliminary paper embodying the principalnbsp;results, which appeared in October of that year.^ It unfortunatelynbsp;seemed necessary to publish the list of species, including the new ones,

2 Notes on some Mesozoic plants from near Oroville, California, by Wm. M. Fontaine: Ain. Jour. Sci., October, 1896, 4th series, Vol. II, pp. 273-275.

in this article without descriptions, and as such they are mere nomina 7iuda, but the types are at the National Museum duly labeled and acces-.sible to all, so that there could be no question as to identification. Thenbsp;closing paragraph of this article shows that in the course of his examination of this thoroughly representative collection, with the originalnbsp;small collection in his hands at the same time. Professor Fontaine wasnbsp;induced to regard the deposit as somewhat higher than he formerlynbsp;supposed:

From this it will be seen that the evidence that the age is Jurassic is stronger than for any other, and as the Oolitic plants predominate, we may assume with considerable probability that it is rather late Jurassic, being about that of the lower Oolitenbsp;(p. 275).

All this, taken in connection with the close lithological resemblances, seems to point to the practical identity of these auriferous slates with the typical Mariposa slates farther south.

There are many causes that have delayed progress in bringing out the final report on the Oroville collections. Professor Fontaine�snbsp;manuscript containing the full descriptions and dii�ections for illustration was submitted August 11, 1896, but the Division of Illustrationsnbsp;was unable to take them up until the fall of 1897, and owing to prolonged interruptions they were not completed until the spring of 1899.nbsp;The drawings were submitted to Professor Fontaine for revision andnbsp;all steps taken to render them as perfect as possible. Having workednbsp;out the sjmonymy with special care 1 introduce the report into thisnbsp;paper in the following form:

The plants described in this paper were collected in September, 1895, by Air. Lester F. Ward, assisted by Air. James Storrs. Theynbsp;were obtained near Oroville, California, from a formation which fornbsp;convenience of reference I will call the Oroville beds. The}' were collected from four localities, which are all near together. The followingnbsp;are the localities:

1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The old dump at the Banner mine, near Feather River, 5 milesnbsp;east of Oroville, California.

3. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bank of Feather River, one-half mile south of the Banner mine.

All the fossils occur on the same horizon. Air. Ward says in a note that these Oroville beds closely resemble the Jurassic Mariposa slates,nbsp;but the identity is not made out. According to oral statements madenbsp;by him, the formation where the plants were collected is in the formnbsp;of a narrow belt, pei�haps 500 yards wide, with a dip of from 70� to 80�.

The beds contain no fossils besides the plants. They are not connected stratigraphically with any known foi-mation, and their age, so far asnbsp;yet known, must be determined from the plant fossils.

Mr. H. W. Turner, in a paper on The Age and Succession of the Igneous Rocks of the Sierra Nevada, published in the Journal ofnbsp;Geology, Vol. Ill, No. 4, May-June, 1895, p. 394, speaking of thenbsp;eruptive rocks of the Smartsville area, says:

These rocks, largely augite-porphyrites and their tuffs, are presumed to have covered, as with a mantle, the underlying Paleozoic formation. There are some streaks of slates among the eruptive masses, but these have not in the Smartsville area affordednbsp;any fossils. However, during the past season, in the north extension of the samenbsp;area, in a belt of clay-slate interbedded with augite-breccia and tuff, fossil plantsnbsp;were collected by T. W. Stanton. The exact locality is by the stage road south ofnbsp;the Oroville Table Mountain, near the Banner gold quartz mine.

The locality referred to by Mr. Turner is that from which Mr. Ward collected. The plants collected bj^ Dr. Stanton were submitted by ]Mr.nbsp;Mhird to me for determination. They will be noticed further on.

The rock material carrying the plants described in this paper shows some chemical disturbance, so that the fossils, especially in the coarsernbsp;matrix, ai�e sometimes poorly preserved in their more delicate parts.nbsp;They are a good deal rubbed, crushed, and distorted. The rocks shownbsp;considerable induration, the finer argillaceous material being in thenbsp;condition of a fine slate. The tuffs have the aspect of a hard sandstone.nbsp;The slate varies in color from lead-gray to black, the latter havingnbsp;much carbon in a diffused state. It looks much like the roof slates of

To judge from the specimens collected b}^ Messrs. Ward and Storrs, most of the rock of the Oroville beds that carries plants consists ofnbsp;alternations of sandy-looking beds with layers of slate. The formernbsp;are probably the tuffs noticed by Mr. Turner. I will refer to thisnbsp;material as tuff's in describing the plants.

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SPECIES.

Class FILICALES.

Family FILICES (Feinis).

1876. Thyrsopteris MaakutTia Heer: Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens, FI. Foss. Arct., A�'ol. IV, Pt. II, pp. 23, 31, 118, pi. i, figs, la, lb; pi. ii, figs. 5, .5b, 6.

This plant was found in one specimen at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc., and in three speci-

mens from the locality �Bank of Feather Kiver,� etc. It is too frag-mentaiy and too poorly preserved to permit its character to benbsp;made out fully. It most resembles the Tliyr copter la Maaldana ofnbsp;Heer, from the Jurassic of Siberia,^ but the pinnules are more entire,nbsp;probably because they are higher up on the frond.

The most complete specimen is the one figured. This occurs on a fragment of indurated tuff that has the pln^sical charactei' of sandstone, hence the imprint is not distinct and is somewhat distorted.nbsp;This imprint shows a portion of a penultimate pinna, with severalnbsp;ultimate pinnse on each side of the rachis. These are lanceolate innbsp;form and alternate in position, with lobes and teeth cut obliquely intonbsp;an oblong or ovate shape. The basal upper pimudes are decidedlynbsp;larger than aiy^ of the rest. Toward the ends of the ultimate pinnasnbsp;the pinnules become entire, or nearly so. The incision of the laminanbsp;is made to vaiying depths, according to position, so that the lobesnbsp;pass to teeth higher up.

189(i. Adiantites orovillensis Font,: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

Frond tripinnate, primary and secondary rachises strong and rigid. The principal rachis was seen with a thickness up to 5 mm. Thenbsp;primary pinnai are long and lanceolate in form. Their mode of insertion was not seen. The ultimate pinnaa are subopposite and oblong innbsp;form, with 4 to 5 pinnules on a side that do not diminish muchnbsp;in size from the base to the summit of the pinnte. Tdiey are terminated b}^ a spatulate pinnule that is nearly as large as the rest, annbsp;unusual feature in ferns. The pinnules are round to reniform in shapenbsp;and subopposite. They are rather remote and decurrent to form anbsp;narrow wing. They are small, about 6 mm. wide and 4 mm. in height.nbsp;Their nervation was not clearly made out, but seems to be composednbsp;of a bundle that spreads in the lamina of the pinnule, in a flabellatenbsp;manner, forking once in each Iwanch.

This elegant little fern was found in only one .specimen at the locality �Bank of Feather River, one-half mile south of the Banner mine.� PI. XLIX, Fig. 2, gives this specimen, and Fig. 3 represents one of the pinnules magnilied to show details.

I Flora Foss. Arot., Vol. IV, Beitrage zur Jiira-Flora Ostsib. und des Amurlandes, p. 31, pi. i, fig. la; pi. ii, fig. 6.

1896. Cladophlebis spectabilis (Heer) Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

This beautiful and well-characterized fern was found in two pretty well-preserved specimens at the locality �Bank of Feather River,nbsp;one-half mile south of the Banner mine.� The specimens show onl}'nbsp;detached portions of ultimate pinnae. The specimen given in PI.nbsp;XLIX, Fig. 4, shows portions of three ultimate pinnae in a positionnbsp;that they would have if they had been attached to a principal rachis.nbsp;This specimen shows that the fern was at least bipinnate. The plantnbsp;was clearly a large one, and it was probably subarborescent. Thenbsp;rachises are strong and rigid. The pinnules are largo and closelynbsp;placed, but separate to their bases. Their ends are very obtuse andnbsp;their texture seems to have been thin. The midnerve of the pinnulesnbsp;is sharply defined, but not verj^ thick. The lateral nerves are verynbsp;distinct, but not strong; they fork twice, the forking taking placenbsp;near the midnerve. The branches diverge suddenly, and then gonbsp;nearly parallel until they reach the margins of the pinnules.

The general aspect of this plant is not common among ferns, and hence it can be easily recognized, and there is not much danger ofnbsp;confounding it with other species. This fact gives to even small fragments a value not possessed by less well-defined forms.

Fig. 4 gives the most complete specimen, and Fig. 5 a pinnule of the same, magnified to show details.

This plant is no doubt identical with that described by Heer as Asplenium, spectahile from the Jurassic formation on the upper Amur,nbsp;in Siberia.^ Heer regards the species as an Asplenium on the strengthnbsp;of supposed sori that he saw on his specimens. Nothing resemblingnbsp;sori was seen on the Oroville plants. The species clearly belongs tonbsp;the Cladophlebis type of fern. I prefer to call all ferns of this typenbsp;Cladophlebis and not to identify them with living species in the absencenbsp;of satisfactoiy proof.

1876. Asplenium argululum Heer: Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens, FI. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt.

II, pp. 24, 41, 96, 118, 120, pi. iii, figs. 7, 7b, 7c, 7d; pi. xix, figs. 1, lb, 2, 3, 3b, 3c, 4.

1896. Cladophlebisargululus (Heer) Fontaine : Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

Flora Foss. Aret., Vol. IV, Pt. II, Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostsib. und des Amurlandes, pp. 96, 97, pl. xxi, figs, 1, 2a.

A considerable number of specimens of a small fern were obtained that agree so well with Heer�s Asplenium argutulum that it may without much hesitation be identified with it. Heer�s plant was obtainednbsp;from the Jurassic formation on the upper Amur Eiver, the same thatnbsp;yielded C. spectabilis} Most of the Oroville specimens are fragmentary and distorted by pressure. This is the case with the formnbsp;represented in Fig. 1, and in consequence of this the pinnules appearnbsp;more united and wider than in Heer�s normal forms.

This is the most common small-leaved fern at the Oroville localities. It occurs at most of them, but is most abundant at the locality �Innbsp;the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine to the Feathernbsp;River,� etc.

Fig. 1 gives the upper part of a compound pinna. Fig. 3 represents several detached ultimate pinnae from the lower part of the frond, andnbsp;Fig. 4 gives a pinnule of the same enlarged to show details.*^

1876. Asplenium (Diplazium) whilbiense tenue var. a Heer: Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens, FI. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Ft. II, pp. 24, 39, 95, 118, 120, pi. iii, figs. 3, 3b;nbsp;pi. XX, figs. 2, 3a; pi. xxi, figs. 3a, 3b, 4, 4b.

1896. Cladophlebis whitbiensis tenuis var. a (Heer) Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., A^ol. II, p. 274.

Two small fragments of a fern that is without doubt of whitbiensis type were found at �The old dump at the Banner mine.� Both arenbsp;the terminations of ultimate pinnte, parts of ferns that have little valuenbsp;in fixing character, and hence, as the amount of material is so small,nbsp;the identity of this fern must remain in doubt. It is, however, clearlynbsp;different from the other ferns found at Oroville, and is so much likenbsp;the form described by Heer* from the Jurassic of Siberia that it maynbsp;be provisionally identified with it. The Oroville plant may be compared with fig. 2 of Heer�s pi. xx. The plant has a sharply definednbsp;character marked by the possession of pinnules that are very broad at

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Flora Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. II, Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostsib. und des Amurlandes, p. 96, pi.nbsp;xix, figs 1-4.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;After Professor Fontaine had studied the specimens it was observed that there was a counterpartnbsp;of the upper part of the specimen, Fig. 1, which shows the details somewhat better, and this is shownnbsp;in Fig 2. A small piece on the left of the portion of the large slab, designated Fig. 8 by Professornbsp;Fontaine, split off, revealing the pinna included in that figure, which lies in the opposite directionnbsp;and is not in the same plane as the others on the rock. The reverse of this on the small piece thusnbsp;split off shows more than the side adhering to the large slab, and is represented in Fig. 5. The perfect pinnule near the top of this on the left is given in Fig. 6, enlarged two diameters.

3 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;It is not worth while to attempt to work out the synonymy of this form, as it is clearly different

from the original Pecopteris tenuis Schouw, Mss., based on a specimen in Prince Christian�s Museum and figured by Brongniart in his Hist. V�g. Foss., Vol. I, pi. cx, fig. 4, and the whole group needsnbsp;revision.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. F. W.

4Flora Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. II, Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostib. und des Amurlandes, p. 95, pi. xx, figs. 2, 3a.

base with acute tips. At the same time they are inclined forward in a peculiar maimer. �he3' can not be united with CladojMeMs ��tpeotaMlis,nbsp;the plant nearest to it that occurs at Oroville.

This fern belongs evidenth^ to that well-marked Jui�assic tj�pe brought under the comprehensive name Cladoplilebis whitbiensis, andnbsp;resembles Brongniart�s form more than that of Lindlej^ and Hutton.

Frond tripinnate at least. The largest primary rachis seen, given in PI. LI, Fig. 1, has a width of 6 mm. The primary pinnte arenbsp;alternate and very long. The largest portions found were 14 cm. innbsp;length, with the basal and terminal portions not preserved. Thisnbsp;portion does not change in width much throughout its length, andnbsp;hence must belong to a pinna that was much larger than the part seen.nbsp;The primary pinnai wei�e probably linear-lanceolate in form, andnbsp;tapered very gradually from base to tip. They are closeh� placed, sonbsp;that they overlap. The rachises are strong and rigid, going off fromnbsp;the principal rachis at an angle of 45� and curving away from it.nbsp;The secondary pinnEC are alternate to subopposite and verj^ closely'nbsp;placed so as to overlap. They gradually diminish in length and sizenbsp;from their insertions on the primary pinnae to their ends. The longest basal ones are about 2 cm. in length and the width of these isnbsp;about 2 mm. In shape they are oblong with subacute ends. The}^ arenbsp;inserted at about an angle of 45�, and are falcately curved towardnbsp;the ends of the primary pinnae. The lowest, basal, ultimate pinnaenbsp;are cut in their lower portions down to the midrib into ovate subfal-cate and subacute pinnules that are closely placed, hut the portionsnbsp;higher up have the lamina of the leaf more and more entire, thenbsp;incisions passing, -at the tips of the ultimate pinn�, into teeth.nbsp;Higher up on the frond and more toward the ends of the primaiwnbsp;pinnae the ultimate ones become more and more entire and pass intonbsp;lobed and dentate pinnules. The tip of the primary pinna has pinnules and lobes like those of the idtimate pinnae lower down. Thenbsp;nervation could not be made out.

Fig. 1 represents a portion of a primaiy pinna. Fig. 2 gives several secondarj^ pinnae, placed as if they had been attached to a principalnbsp;rachis. Fig. 3 gives the terminal portion of a frond, or of one of thenbsp;lower primary pinnae. Fig. 4 gives a portion of a lower ultimatenbsp;pinna magniffed to show details.

This is one of the most abundant small-leaved ferns in the formation, and it shows larger portions better preserved than any of the small ferns.

The plant previously knoAvn that is perhaps nearest to this is the sterile form of Pecopteris lobata Oldh., of the Rajinahal flora.^ Thenbsp;enlarged pinnules on pi. xxx, of Oldham and Morris, allowing fornbsp;their evident distortion, are much like those of the Oroville fossils.nbsp;At the same time the density of the lobes and pinnules in the ultimatenbsp;pinnse, the shape of the ultimate pinnee, their close position, and modenbsp;of insertion, are much like features shoAvn in the plant from OroAulle.nbsp;The Indian plant is mostly fructified, but this feature is Avanting innbsp;the fossil now being described. While these points shoAv that thenbsp;tAvo are probably near together, it seems the better usage, in the casenbsp;of plants growing in regions as far apart, and in the absence ofnbsp;stronger proof of identity, to regard them as distinct species. Clado-p}d�gt;i% densifolm is found at the locality �Bank of Feather River,nbsp;one-half mile south of the Banner mine. �

1862. Pecopteris (Aleihopieris) indica Oldh. and Morr.: Palseontologia Indica, Ser. II.

Foss. FI. Gondw. Syst., Vol. I, Pt. I, Foss. FI. Eajmahal Series, p. 47, pi. xxvii.

1869. Aleihopterisindica (Oldh. and Morr.) Schimp.: Trait� de Pal. V�g., Vol. I, p. 568. 1896. Cladophlebis indica (Oldh. and Morr.) Font.?: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II,nbsp;p. 274.

A single specimen was obtained from the locality: � In the bed of a raATiie that leads from the Banner mine,� etc., of a fern that seemsnbsp;identical Avith the typical Pecopteris indica�� of Oldham and Morris,nbsp;from the Rajmahal .series of India. It is especially like fig. 1 of pi.nbsp;xxA�i of the Fossil Flora of the Rajmahal Series. The specimen is annbsp;imprint of the middle portion of an ultimate pinna that shows severalnbsp;pinnules. These are united at the base. They are pretty large, andnbsp;shoAV little diminution in Avidth from their bases to their tips. Theynbsp;are strongly falcate, but show no neiwes, except a pretty strong midrib. There is not enough material to permit a positive identificationnbsp;of this species to be made.

1896. Tceniopteris orovillensis Font. : Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

The fronds vary in length from 1 to 4 cm. The maximum length seen is 13 cm. on fragments of fronds. The largest were probably at

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Fossil Flora of the Rajmahal Series, p. 52, pi. xxviii, fig. 1; pi. xxix; pi. xxx.

least 26 cm. long-. The fronds taper gradually from near the middle toward their base and tip, so that they are narrowly elliptical innbsp;shape. The midrib is strong, prominent, and rounded. The lateralnbsp;nerves go off nearly at right angles, curve slightly away from thenbsp;midrib, and then, near the margin, curve slightl}'^ toward the ends ofnbsp;the fronds. They are parallel throughout their course, very fine butnbsp;distinct, and very closely placed, being about three in the space ofnbsp;1 mm. The leaf substance is thick and durable, giving the pinnule anbsp;rigid aspect. No entire specimen was seen.

This plant is b}^ far the most common fossil at Oroville. It occurs abundantly at the localities �Bank of Feather River,� etc., and �Innbsp;the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc. It is verynbsp;near the plant figured and described by Saporta^ as Tmiiopteris tenui-nervis Brauns, from the Infralias of France. From an inspection ofnbsp;the material afforded by Stanton�s collection it was regarded as identical with Saporta�s plant. This species varies a good deal in dimensions, and from the imperfect material in the above-mentioned collection the writer supposed that another species figured by Saporta fromnbsp;the same formation, viz, T. stenoneura Schenk, was also present.nbsp;The very abundant and well-preserved material collected b}quot; Messrs.nbsp;Ward and Storrs establishes a complete gradation between all thenbsp;forms of Tasniopteris found at Oroville, and shows that only onenbsp;species exists there. In addition, it makes it pretty clear that this isnbsp;a new species. The larger specimens much surpass in size any ofnbsp;Saporta�s, and, what is of more importance, the nerves are finer, morenbsp;closely placed, and they do not fork at any point.

Fig. 2 gives a portion of one of the small fronds, not the smallest, and Fig. 3 represents the average of the largest forms. It shows wellnbsp;the mode of tapering toward the base of the frond, while it gives asnbsp;much of the stipe as is seen on any of the specimens. Fig. 4 gives annbsp;enlarged fragment, to show the nervation.

1896. Macrotxniopteris californica Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

Fronds variable in width, mostly large. The largest seen had a midrib 1 cm. in width and a leaf at least 16 cm. wide. Only fragmentsnbsp;were seen. The smallest form had a width toward its base of only 4nbsp;cm. The widest leaves were not entire, so that their maximum width

1 Paleontologie Fran^aise, 2e S�rie, V�g�taux, Vol. I, p. 441, pi. Ixiii, figs, 1-5.

probably surpassed the greatest dimensions seen. The nerves are about three-fourths of a millimeter apart. They are slender but sharplynbsp;defined. They go off nearly at right angles with the midrib and thennbsp;arch slightly forward toward the end of the frond. They are parallelnbsp;in their course and are nearly all unbranched. Very few branch andnbsp;nearly all that fork do so before reaching the middle of the lamina ofnbsp;the frond.

Several specimens of this plant were found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc., but all werenbsp;quite fragmentary and poorly preserved. The varying size of thenbsp;fronds is no doubt due to the var3dng age of the same.

This fossil, although probably a new species, seems to be quite near to Tmniopteris lata Oldh. and Morr.,' of India, but the midrib is widernbsp;and not so rigid as that of the plant from the Rajmahal flora.

PI. LIV, Pig. 1, gives the basal portion of a small form, and PI. LIII, Fig. 1, a fragment of one of the largest leaves.

1896. Maerotxniopteris nervosa Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

Leaf verj' large, dimensions not made out. Midrib very large. The largest imprint of it seen had a width of 15 mm. Not enough ofnbsp;the frond was seen to show the entire course of the lateral nerves.nbsp;As seen, they go off from the midrib at a large angle, then archnbsp;slightly awaj^ from it and are parallel for all their course seen. Theynbsp;sometimes have a common point of insertion for two adjacent lateralnbsp;nerves, which are then single. Sometimes each nerve has an independent point of insertion, and then these may fork near the midrib.nbsp;The lateral nerves are very thick and cord-like and very remote.

No known Macrotteniopteris has nerves anything like those of this plant. The fragments found were evidently but small portions of thenbsp;original fronds. They indicate for it a gigantic size.

Two fragments were found, one at the locality �Bank of Feather River,� etc., and one at the locality �In the bed of a ravine thatnbsp;leads from the Banner mine,� etc., that must have belonged to gigantic fronds. PI. LIV, Fig. 3, and PI. LV, Fig. 1, give the two mostnbsp;perfect specimens, which have a midrib 8 mm. wide.

1896. Angiopteridium califomicum Font.; Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

Two fragments of a fern that seems to be an Angiopteridium were found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from thenbsp;Banner mine,� etc. One of these is the fragment of the middle portion of a sterile pinnule. This is 25 mm. wide. It has very distinct,nbsp;but slender, lax, and rather remote lateral nerves that go off at a largenbsp;angle from the midrib, curve away from it, and then, near the marginnbsp;of the lamina, bend slightly toward the tip of the pinnule. In generalnbsp;aspect the fragment looks much like Tmiiopteris orovillensis, but thenbsp;nerves are quite different. The lateral nerves leave from a commonnbsp;point on the midrib, and then are either .single or fork at varyingnbsp;distances from the midrib, but only once, and mostly halfwa}! betweennbsp;the midrib and margin. The branches are, approximately, parallel.nbsp;This steille form resembles somewhat Angiopteridium nervosum Font.,nbsp;of the Potomac fonnation of Virginia.

The other fragment seems to be the fertile form of the same species as the sterile portion just described. It has the same nervation as thenbsp;sterile fragment, and is the imprint of a portion of a frond, aboutnbsp;2 cm. wide in its widest portion. The imprint shows a length ofnbsp;85 mm., with the basal and terminal portions not preserved. It bears,nbsp;at the margins of the pinnule, elliptical sori of large size. They arenbsp;carried on the ends of the lateral nerves.

This fertile form veseiables Angiopteridium AkClellandi (Oldh. and Morr.) Schimp. It should be stated that the sterile form is a goodnbsp;deal like that depicted b}- Feistmantel on pi. xlvi, fig. 5, of thenbsp;Jurassic Flora of the Rajmahal Group, which he supposes is anbsp;form of A. .McClellandi.

PI. LV, Fig. 2, gives the sterile form, and Fig. 3 an enlarged fragment to show the nerves. Fig. 4 represents the fertile form, andnbsp;Fig. 5 an enlarged poi�tion to show the sori.

Genus SAGENOPTP^RIS Presl.

1820. Sladaflryck (folium ovaium, etc.) Nilsson: K. Vet.-Acad. Handlingar, Stockholm, Vol. I, p. II5, pi. V, figs. 2, 3.

1825. Filicites Nilsoniana Brongn.: Ann. Sci. Nat. de Paris, Vol. IV, p. 218, pi. xii, fig. 1.

1828. Glossopteris Nilsoniana'Brongn.: Prodrome, pp. 54,194; Hist. Veg. Foss., Vol. I, p. 225, pi. Ixiii, figs. 3, 3A.

1836. Aerostichites insequilaterus Sternb. in Goppert: Syst. Fil. Foss., p. 287.

1838. Sagenopieris rhoifoHa Presl in Sternberg: Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. II, pp. 165, 210, pi. XXXV, fig. 1.

1843. Sagenopieris elongala M�nst.: Beitr. z. Petrefactenkunde, Vol. II. Pt. VI, p. 28. 1845. Aerostichites? (Sagenopieris) diphylla (Presl) Ung.: Synops. PI. Foss., p. 77.

Several poorly preserved specimens of a Sagenopteris are found at the localit}� �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,�nbsp;etc. They occur in the form of detached pinnules on indurated tuff,nbsp;and the nervation is poorly shown, but is very dense. PL LVI, Fig.nbsp;1, gives one of the most perfect pinnules, and PL LXVII, Fig. 2, a largenbsp;pinnule in which the anastomosis is not visible. This plant seems tonbsp;be quite near Sagenopteris rJioifolia elongata M�nst.** The midrib innbsp;the Oroville plant is less sti�ong, the nervation denser, and the pinnulesnbsp;ai�e on an average smaller. It may be a new species, but there is notnbsp;enough material to fix positively the character of the plant.

�Le Glossopteris {Phyllopteris) Nilssomana Brongn. appartient sans aucun doute a cette esp�ce. J�en ai pu examiner dans la collection de M. Nilsson a Lund de tr�s-bons �chantillons, qui m�ontnbsp;convaincu que la plante de la Su�de ne differe en rien de celle de I�Allemagne.quot;

As the Filicites Nilsoniana of Brongniart (1825) was the earliest name given to the plant, and as all are now agreed that it belongs to Presl�s genus Sagenopteris (1838), there is no way of escaping thisnbsp;combination for the plant that has so long gone by the name Sagenopteris rhoifolia, which Professornbsp;Fontaine continues to apply to it. The synonymy here given rests entirely on the authority of Preslnbsp;and Schenk. Presl himself admitted that his plant was the same as Sternberg�s Aerostichites inseqni-laterus (1836), which he had shown to Goppert and allowed him to describe. This alone condemnsnbsp;Presl�s specific name. Sehimper confirms all that Schenk says as to the other names, and the formernbsp;worked over the original material. In the synonymy here given 1 have not taken account of thenbsp;three varieties that Schenk distinguishes. It is sufficiently doubtful whether the American formsnbsp;really belong to this widespread polymorphous species or not.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;S'* W.

Genus DIDYMOSORUS Debey and Ettingshausen. Didymosoeus ? BiNDRABUNENSis ACUTiEOLius Eontaine.

1860. Pecopteris (Gleicheniies) linearis Oldh.; Mem. Geol. Survey of India, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 324.

1863. Pecopteris {Gleicheniies) gleichenoides Oldh. and Morr.: Op. cit.. Pal. Ind., Ser.

II, Foss. FI. Gondw. Syst., Vol. I, Pt. I, Foss. FI. Eajmahal Series, p. 45, pi. XXV; pi. xxvi, figs. 1, 3.

1869. Gleichenia hindrabunensis Schimp.: Trait� de Pal. V�g., Vol. I, p. 670.

1875. Gleicheniies hindrabunensis (Schimp.) Feistm.: Verb. d. k.-k. Geol. Reichsanst., Wien, Jahrg. 1875, p. 190.

1877. Gleicheniies {Gleichenia) hindrabunensis (Schimp.) .Feistm.: Mem. Geol. Survey of India, Pal. Ind., Ser. II, Foss. FI. Gondw. Syst., Vol. I, Pt. II, p. 93nbsp;(Jur. FI. Rajm. Group, p. 41).

1888. Didymosorus f gleichenoides (Oldh. and Morr.) Etheridge, var.: Proc. Linn.

1892. Didymosorus f gleichenioides (Oldh. and Morr.) Jack and Etheridge, var.; Geology and Palaeontology of Queensland and New Guinea, p. 557. �

Only a small fragment of this plant was found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc. The specimen is an imprint of a small fragment of the terminal portion of anbsp;penultimate pinna that contains several ultimate pinnte. The latter arenbsp;very small and narrowly linear. The largest are about 2 cm. long andnbsp;not more than 4 mm. wide. They are not very distinctly preserved, asnbsp;they occur on indurated tuff. They are also somewhat distorted bynbsp;pressure. The nervation was not made out. The plant resemblesnbsp;Pecopteris gleichenoides Oldh. and Morr.^ It is probably an acutenbsp;form of the Indian fern. This latter has pinnules with obtuse tips.nbsp;It is most like the plant from the Rajmahal series figured on pi. xxvi,nbsp;fig. 3, but is smaller than that. The narrow pinnse are cut into narrownbsp;ovate-acute lobes or pinnules. Should it prove to be a form of thenbsp;Indian fern it might be called variety acutifolius.

* Jack and Etheridge here change the spelling of the specific name so that the combination becomes identical with Didymosorus gleichenioides Debey and Ettinghausen in their memoir, Die Urweltlichennbsp;Acrobryen des Kreidebirges von Aachen und Maestricht, p. 10 (Denkschr. Wien. Akad., Vol. XVII, p.nbsp;190, pi. i, figs. 1-5), with which no one has compared it, and which is a different plant. Neither Oldhamnbsp;and Morris nor Etheridge seemed to have observed that Debey and Ettinghausen gave this name to onenbsp;of the original forms on which they based the genus, afthough these authors refer to this memoir andnbsp;call attention to other species. As the specific name linearis is also preoccupied, the only remainingnbsp;name is that of Schimper, and this therefore must be retained.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. F. W.

Subkingdom SPERMATOPHYTA.

Class CYCADALES.

Family OYOADAOEAll.

1863. FtsrophyHum rqjmahaleme'Morr.: Mem. Geol. Survey of India, Pal. Ind., Ser.

II, Foss. FI. Gondw. Syst., Vol. I, Pt. I, Foss. FI. Rajm. Series, p. 25, pi. xiii, figs. 3-5; pi. xiv.

Several specimens of a Pterophyllum, which can hardly be separated from P. rajmahalense Morr.^ of the Rajmahal flora, were found at thenbsp;locality �Bank of Feather River,� etc. They are imprints of smallnbsp;portions of leaves, showing several leaflets on each side of a rathernbsp;slender midrib. They agree especially well with the small form givennbsp;on pi. xiii, fig. 4, of the work of Oldham and Morris. The Orovillenbsp;plant has its leaflets opposite to one another and going off at rightnbsp;angles with the stem. They are about 15 mm. long and 5 mm. wide.nbsp;The nerves are about 12 in number. They make right angles with thenbsp;midrib and are slender but distinct. They are parallel throughoutnbsp;their entire course and single. The points of difference between thenbsp;Oroville and Indian plants are the .smaller size of the midrib in thenbsp;former and the somewhat fewer nerves. The amount of material,nbsp;however, is not sufficient to permit the full character of the plant tonbsp;be made out and its identiflcation must remain in doubt for the present.

Only fragments of leaves were seen, hence the character of the entire leaf can not be determined. The segments, or leaflets, arenbsp;large and ribbon shaped. Their terminations were not seen. Theynbsp;are attached by their entire base to the sides of a moderately strongnbsp;midrib. The strongest midrib seen had a width of 4 mm. They gonbsp;ofl' nearly at right angles and then curve slightly toward the summitnbsp;of the compound leaf, so as to have a falcate form. They are slightly

expanded at base, closely placed, and in some cases touch one another. The leaflets vary in width. The largest obtained has a width of 4 cm.nbsp;and a length of 20 cm., being only a fragment with the terminal partnbsp;not preserved. This is represented in PI. LVI, Fig. 6. The nervesnbsp;are very strong and single. They go off at a large angle and arenbsp;approximatel3^ parallel in their course. They anastomose at longnbsp;intervals, so as to form very much elongated meshes. The mode ofnbsp;anastomosis was not fully made out. It is apparently as follows: Anbsp;nerve forks dichotomously, one branch continues the course of thenbsp;original nerve, the other coalesces with an adjacent one. This unionnbsp;takes place rarely near the bases of the leaves, and more freelj^ at anbsp;distance of 3 or 4 cm. above the base of the leaflet. This more frequentnbsp;anastomosis appears to occur also at the same interval, toward thenbsp;middle and terminal portions of the leaflets. This, however, couldnbsp;not be clearly made out, owing to the fragmentary condition andnbsp;imperfect preservation of the leaflets.

A number of fragments of this fine cycadaceous plant were found at the locality � In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,�nbsp;etc., that indicate that it obtained a gigantic size. PI. LVII shows anbsp;leaf with several leaflets in fragments, onlj- the basal portions beingnbsp;represented. The leaflets here are of the smallest size. PI. LVI, Fig.nbsp;6, gives a portion of a leaflet of the largest size. Fig. 7 representsnbsp;the restoration of a portion of a leaflet, to show the nervation andnbsp;� mode of insertion. PI. LIII, Fig. 2, shows the general habit of thenbsp;plant.

This plant and the two to be next desci'ibed belong to a type that is not common, and which seems to be complex in character. Thenbsp;general aspect reminds one of the large Pterophylla of the Rajmahalnbsp;series, especially of Pterophyllum princeps Oldh. and Morr.,�^ butnbsp;this does not have similar nerves. Perhaps the}^ should be placed in anbsp;new genus, but they are near enough to the Ctenis falcataoi Lindley andnbsp;Hutton� to be placed in the same genus with it. The chief differencenbsp;is the much greater size of the Oroville plant. Nathorst�s Ctenisnbsp;fallax and Ctenis imlrricata Font, of the Potomac of Virginia belongnbsp;to the same type, but are specifically different. A noteworthy featurenbsp;of this plant is the unequal width of the leaflets, and in this respect itnbsp;resembles Nilsonia.

Only portions of leaflets were seen. The most complete specimen, given in PI. LVIII, Fig. 2, shows a portion of the compound leaf,nbsp;with the basal parts and attachment of two leaflets. The plant mustnbsp;have reached a large size, but the true dimensions can not be made out.nbsp;Only the basal portions of the leaflets were seen, and in these portionsnbsp;they show some variation. The form represented in Fig. 1 has thenbsp;least narrowing at base and the least auriculate form, having somewhatnbsp;the shape of the bases of the leaflets of O. grandifolia. The basesnbsp;of the leaflets in the form represented in Fig. 2 are considerably roundednbsp;off and narrowed at their insertion, so that they have a pronouncednbsp;auriculate form. The nerves are quite different from those of C.nbsp;grandifolia^ but the general plan of anastomosis is similar, althoughnbsp;more abundant. The nerves, near their attachment, are rather remotenbsp;and straggling. They gooff at a large angle and are, near their bases,nbsp;mostly single, but above branch more or less copiously. Those in thenbsp;middle and upper sides of the lamina of the leaflet are less copiouslynbsp;branched, but those in the lower portion branch repeatedly in a flabel-late manner, curving outward and downward in the more auriculatenbsp;leaves to fill the expanded base. This description applies only to thenbsp;basal portions of the leaflets, for only these were seen. The nervesnbsp;are very strong and cord-like, being considerably stronger than thosenbsp;of C. grandifolia. They anastomose by one of the branches of a forking nerve coalescing with an adjacent nerve to form elongate meshes,nbsp;after the general fashion seen in C. grandifolia., but there is no regularity in the intervals at which this takes place, and the union of nervesnbsp;is more common.

A considerable number of specimens of this plant are found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,�nbsp;etc. The specimens are not complete enough to show the full character of the plant, but they are enough so to indicate that it is quitenbsp;different from C. grandifolia., and, indeed, from any hitherto-knownnbsp;species. The auriculate form of the bases of the leaflets reminds onenbsp;of C. imbricata Font, of the Potomac formation, but there is hardlynbsp;any other feature of resemblance except the existence of a reticulationnbsp;of the Ctenis type.

Fig. 3 gives a portion of a leaflet above the base and shows well the copious reticulation of that portion.

The most complete specimen, given in Fig. 4, shows the basal portions of several leaflets, placed on each side of the midrib of the compound leaf. They are subopposite, closely placed, at right angles with the midrib, and have expanded bases, so that they are separatednbsp;by a V-shaped sinus, while at their bases they are apparently unitednbsp;to form a narrow wing. The leaflets vary somewhat in width, but notnbsp;so much as those of C. grandifolia. The nerves are strong and distinct, but not so much so as those of the two previously describednbsp;species. Those in the middle portion of the lamina go off at rightnbsp;angles, while those near the upper and lower margins of the same gonbsp;off at obtuse angles and arch away from the midrib to enter the leaflet. The nerves anastomose rather rarely at and near the midrib andnbsp;more freely at the distance of about 25 mm. above the midrib. Theynbsp;anastomose again more freely at about 5 cm. above the midrib. Hencenbsp;the free anastomosis occurs at intervals of about 25 mm., forming elongate meshes, wdth a similar length.

Several specimens of this plant are found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc. Like G. grandifolia, this plant reminds one of the large Pterophylla of the Rajmahalnbsp;series. It may be a form of �. grandifolia, but has not the facies ofnbsp;that plant. The leaflets also are smaller, with a thinner texture, andnbsp;they are of more uniform width. The leaflets in shape, size, and texture resemble those of Ctenophyllum Wardii, which will be nextnbsp;described, but this latter has no reticulation in the nerves.

Entire leaves not seen. Probably they were nearly a meter long. The largest fragment seen showed only the middle portion of a leaf,nbsp;with no sensible diminution in the leaflets from one end to the other.nbsp;It is 26 cm. long, with a slender midrib, not more than 2 mm. wide.nbsp;A number of leaflets go off� on each side of this, none of which arenbsp;entire. The leaflets are quite far apart, having a distance of aboutnbsp;15 mm. They are subopposite and ribbon-shaped. They are separatenbsp;to their bases, which are decurrent on their lower sides and slightlynbsp;rounded off on the upper ones. Thei^ do not alter in width through-

out their length. The maximum length seen was 13 cm. The leaflets go off at an angle of about 60�, and then turn slight^ away from thenbsp;midrib. Their width is somewhat variable. The average width is 2nbsp;cm. and the maximum 3 cm. The nerves are line, but distinct andnbsp;very numerous. They go off at an angle of 45�, and immediatelynbsp;after leaving the midrib turn strongly away from it, and then arenbsp;parallel throughout their course. They fork once near their bases.nbsp;No additional forking was certainly made out. If it takes place itnbsp;must occur at long intervals and irregularhquot;.

Several specimens of this splendid plant were found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc. PI.nbsp;LIX gives the most complete form and PI. LX that with the widestnbsp;leaflets. A few fragments of leaflets of this species are also seen onnbsp;PI. LXVII, Fig. 5.

This fine plant is one of several species found at the Oroville locality which are evidentl}^ allied and probably belong to the same genus.nbsp;The genus Ctenophyllum, as defined by Schimper, seems to be the onenbsp;in which they must be placed; that is, provided we may translate hisnbsp;description, �foliolis lateri rachis superiori, obliqueadfixis,� by: leaflets attached obliquely to the upper side (not face) of the rachis. Thenbsp;leaflets are attached obliquely to the sides of the rachis in the plane ofnbsp;the upper face of the same. It must be admitted that these plants arenbsp;of a very different type from Ctenophyllum Braunianmn^ so far asnbsp;their general aspect is concerned.

The plant now in question is nearer C. latifolium Font.^ of the Potomac of Virginia than any other hitherto known, but the leaflets do not vary so much in width and the nerves are more slender and closelynbsp;placed.

The plant is named for Mr. Lester F. Ward, by whose efforts the fine collection from Oroville was obtained.

1896. Clenophyllum densifolium Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

The size of the leaf is unknown, as all the specimens were fragments. The most complete portion found is a fragment of a compound leaf,nbsp;29 cm. long, from the middle part. This indicates that the plant mustnbsp;have been very large. It is apparently the largest Ctenophyllumnbsp;occurring at Oroville. It shows a number of leaflets on a side, thenbsp;largest of which, with the upper portion of it not preserved, is 13 cm.nbsp;long. Notwithstanding the considerable size of this specimen, it showsnbsp;no diminution from base to summit in the size of the midrib and of

the leaflets. The leaflets go off nearly at idght angles with the midrib, have the same width throughout their length, and are closely placed,nbsp;being only 1 mm. apart. They are 1 cm. wide, and are very uniform innbsp;width. The nerves go off' nearly at right angles. Thej^ are slender,nbsp;but strongly defined, unbranched, and parallel throughout their course,nbsp;being about 10 in number. This fine plant is rather abundant at thenbsp;locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,�nbsp;etc. It occurs in large specimens, the finest of which is given on PI.nbsp;LXI. It is nearly allied to (7. grandifoliuni, but is clearly a differentnbsp;species.

1896. Ctenophyllum yrandifolium Storrsii Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

This plant can not be distinguished specifically from 0. grandifolmm Font., of the Older Mesozoic of Virginia,^ but although it evidentlynbsp;attained a very large size, it was inferior to the Virginia plant, andnbsp;had uniformly narrower leaffets, with fewer nerves. The midrib wasnbsp;wide and flat, with apparentl}^ no great amount of wood tissue. Thenbsp;leaflets go off nearly at right angles with the midrib. They are placednbsp;far apart and are separate, being mostly 5 mm. from one to another.nbsp;Throughout most of their length they are strap-shaped and narrow,nbsp;near their bases they grow narrower, and at their base, where theynbsp;unite with the midrib, they are slightly widened. The narrowed portion appears to have been thick and fleshy. The leaflets must havenbsp;been very long, equaling the Virginia plant in that respect. Thenbsp;width of the leaflets, even on the same midrib, was not constant, butnbsp;varied irregularly, although slightty, resembling in this point the Virginia fossil. The nerves are very strong, 6 or 6 in number, and eithernbsp;single or forking once, at various distances from the midrib. Nearnbsp;the midrib they are almost always single, and go off nearly at rightnbsp;angles with the midrib, being then parallel. This nervation differsnbsp;from that of the Virginia plant, in which the nerves fork once at theirnbsp;bases and are then single.

This fine plant was found with several specimens at the locality � In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc. PI. LXIInbsp;represents the most complete fragment found, and PI. LXIII, Fig. 1,nbsp;a portion of a leaflet enlarged to show the nervation. Other less perfect fragments are represented by PL LIII, Fig. 3, and PI. LXVI,nbsp;Fig 3.

The variety is named for Mr. James Storrs, the intelligent assistant of Mr. M^ard in collecting the Oroville fossils.

iMon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 73-76, pi. xxxix, figs. 1-3; pi. xl; pi. xli; pi. xlii, fig. 1.

1896. Ctenophyllum angustifolium Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. Il, p. 274.

Thi.s plant was found in two small imprints, occurring on the same fragment of rock at the localit}^ �Bank of Feather River,� etc.nbsp;Although the amount of material is so small, it is enough to shownbsp;certainly that the plant is quite different from any other cycad occurring in the Oroville region. The most complete specimen, shown innbsp;PI. LXIII, Fig. 2, has a midrib 4 cm. long and 1 mm. wide, withnbsp;several leaflets going off on each side. Only the basal portions ofnbsp;these are preserved, the largest being only 35 mm. long. The leafletsnbsp;make right angles with the midrib, are only 1 mm. wide, and arenbsp;slightly expanded at base. The nerves are only three or four innbsp;number and strong, but they are not very distinctly shown.

This plant is plainly one of the narrow-leaved Ctenophylla of the type of Ctenophyllum Braunianum. It is especially like the formnbsp;depicted in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pi. xxxiv, fig. 4, butnbsp;the leaflets are closer in the Oroville plant.

Genus PODOZAMITES Friedrich Braun.

1836. Zamia lanceolata L. and H.: Foss. FI. Gt. Brit., Vol. Ill, p. 121, pi. cxciv. 1840. Zamites lanceolatus (L. and H.) Fr. Braun: Verzeichniss Kreis-Nat.-Samml.nbsp;Bayreuth Petrefact., p. 100.

1843. Podozamiies lanceolatus (L. and H.) Fr. Braun in M�nster: Beitr. z. Petrefac-tenkunde, Vol. II, Pt. VI, p. 33.

A large number of imprints of this plant are found at the localit}^ �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc., andnbsp;at least one was obtained from the locality �Bank of Feather River,�nbsp;etc. The most common are detached leaflets, but some imprints arenbsp;found with the leaflets attached. The leaves are rather variable innbsp;size, but the average, or normal forms, can not be distinguished fromnbsp;those that Heer describes from Cape Boheman.* The larger leafletsnbsp;are exactly like the larger ones from Cape Boheman and surpass innbsp;size any of the species of P. Emmonsii or of the type form of Bindleynbsp;and Hutton.

This plant is of special importance in fixing the age of the strata containing it, as, next to Toeniopteris ot^oviUemis, it is the most abun-

1 Flora Foss. Arot., Vol. IV, Pt. I, Beitriige zur Foss. Flor. Spitzbergens, p. 35, pi. vii, figs. 1-7.

dant fossil. Heer regards the Cape Boheman Jurassic as Middle Brown Jura (Bathonian) in age.

PI. LXIII, Fig. 4, gives one of the most complete forms, and PI. LXIV, Fig. 1, represents a form with somewhat narrower leaflets.nbsp;An imperfect specimen is seen at Fig. 4 of PI. LXVI, and it seemsnbsp;probable that the parts of leaves represented by Figs. 3 and 4 of PI.nbsp;LXVII belong to this plant.

PI. LXIV, Fig. 2.

1828. Txniopteris latifolia Brongn.: Prodrome, pp. 62,199; Hist. V�g. Foss., Vol. I, p. 266, pi. Ixxxii, fig. 6.

1833. Odontopteris latifolia (Brongn.) Sternb.: Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. II, p. 79. 1838. Zamites latifolius (Brongn.) Presl: Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 199.

1867. Podozamites distans latifolia (Brongn.) Schenk: Foss. FI. der Grenzschichten des Keupers und Lias, p. 162, pi. xxxvi, fig. 10.

1876. Podozamites lanceolatus latifolius (Brongn.) Heer: Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens, FI. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. H, pp. 109, 120, pi. xxvi, figs. 5, 6, 8b, 8c.

Two or three detached leaflets of a Podozamites of the type of P. lanceolatm were found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine thatnbsp;leads from the Banner mine,� etc., which seem to difler at least vari-etally from the narrow P. lanceolatm^ being broader and shorter.nbsp;They agree well with the leaflets described by Heer ^ from the Juranbsp;formation on the Upper Amur as a variety latifolius of P. lanceolatm.

Class GINKGOALES.

1883. Baiera multifida Font.: Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 87, pi. xlv, fig. 3; pi. xlvi; pi. xlvii, figs. 1, 2.

Portions of a plant that appears to be a Baiera, near P. multifida Font., of the Older Mesozoic of Virginia, were found in two specimens; one, showing the basal part, given in PI. LXV, Fig. 1, wasnbsp;obtained at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leads from thenbsp;Banner mine,� etc., and the other, showing laciniae, represented innbsp;Fig. 2, at the locality �Bank of Feather River,� etc. The amount ofnbsp;material is too small to permit a positive determination of the plant.nbsp;It is, however, a coarse, large form, that reminds one strongly ofnbsp;Baiera multifida Font.

1 Flora Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. II, Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostsib. und des Amurlandes, p. 109, pi. xxvi, figs. 5, 6, 8b, 8c.

Class CONIFERS.

Family FINACEyE.

1829. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Lycopodites uncifolius Phillips: Geology of Yorkshire, pp. 147, 167, pi. viii,

1833. Lycopodites Williamsonis Brongn. in Bindley and Hutton: Foss. FI. 6t. Brit., Vol. II, p. 33, pi. xciii.

1870. Pachyphyllum Williamsoni Schimp.: Trait� de Pal�ontologie V�g�tale, Vol. II, p. 251.

1896. Pagiophyllum Williamsoni (Schimp.) Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4thSer., Vol. II, p. 274.

Several impressions of a conifer strongly resembling Pagiophyllum Williamsonis were found at the locality �In the bed of a ravinenbsp;that leads from the Banner mine,� etc. The largest imprint is thatnbsp;of a stem 8 cm. long. This has portions of several branches and onenbsp;entire branch. The latter is 15 mm. long and bears at its summit annbsp;elliptical, scaly cone, of the same shape and dimensions as thatnbsp;depicted by Bindley and Hutton on a branch of their Lycopodites Williamsonis on pi. xciii of the second volume of the Fossil Flora of Greatnbsp;Britain. This, as Schimper showed, is, not a Lycopodites, but a conifer, of the type he named Pachyphyllum, and for which, owing to thenbsp;preoccupation of the name Pachyphyllum, the appellation Pagiophyllum of Heer is now chosen.

The stems carry one-ribbed, curved, and stiff leaves, in the Oro-ville specimens. There is no doubt that they belong to the genus Pagiophyllum, and are very near to the English plant.

1876. Pinus Nordensldoldi Heer: Beitr. zur Foss. FI. Spitzbergens, FI. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. I, pp. 45, 135, pi. ix, figs. 1, lb, 2, 2b, 3, 3b, 4, 5, 5b, 6.

Several detached fragments of a broad-leaved Pinus were found at the localities �In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Bannernbsp;mine,� etc., and � The old dump at the Banner mine,� etc. They shownbsp;neither their bases nor their tips. They belong to broad, stiff, one-nerved Pinus leaves that agree well with Heer�s plant. ^ Of course nonbsp;positive determination can be made from such imperfect material.

iFlor. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. I, Beitrage zur Foss. Flor. Spitzbergens, p. 45, pi. ix, figs. 1-6.

1896. Undetermined cone Font.: Am. .Tour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

A rather vague imprint occurs at the localit}^ � In the bed of a ravine that leads from the Banner mine,� etc., which, although it shows nonbsp;structure, in shape and the arrangement of its parts, looks somethingnbsp;like a cone of Leptostrobus. It may be compared with the cone ofnbsp;LeptostroJms crassipes Heer, as given in Flor. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV,nbsp;Pt. II, Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens, pi. xiii, fig. 14.

PLANTS OF UNCERTAIN AFFINITY.

1896. Carpolithus Storrsii Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274.

A considerable number of imprints of an aggregation of nut-like fruits was found at the locality �In the bed of a ravine that leadsnbsp;from the Banner mine,� etc. The nut-like seeds appear to have beennbsp;borne in pairs at the summit of short pedicels, arranged at considerable intervals and spirally, around a flexuous axis. The thickest axisnbsp;seen has a diameter of 3 mm. The pedicels are stout and about 5 mm.

iln the Nineteenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, Pt. II, p. 691, this genus was credited to Artis, whose use of this orthography in his Antediluvian Phytology, 1825, pp. XV and 22, was then thought to benbsp;the earliest. I have since observed that it was so spelled by Stokes and Webb in their Description ofnbsp;some Fossil Vegetables of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex (Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 2d series, Vol. I,nbsp;1824, p. 423) one year earlier. Schimper (Trait� de Pal. V�g., Vol. II, p. 225) credits it to Sternberg,nbsp;but he wrote the name Carpolites (Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. I, Tentamen, p. XL, 1825). Schlotheim, innbsp;1820, wrote Carpolitkes (Petrefactenkunde, p. 418), and this seems to be the earliest date at which fossil fruits were systematically treated. Parkinson, in his Organic Remains, Vol. 1,1804, figured a considerable number on pi. vi, but an examination of the letterpress fails to indicate that he attemptednbsp;to give them even a generic name. In Bronn�s Index Palaeontologicus (Nomenclator, pp. 238-241)nbsp;most of these are named under Carpolithes and credited to Parkinson, with reference to pi. vi of thenbsp;Organic Remains, but without reference to the text, and it seems probable that Goppert named themnbsp;from the figures and is to be credited with the names.

The form Carpolithus seems preferable to Carpolithes or Carpolites, but if it is to be treated as a genus it should conform to the law of priority in use. It is retained here only on the assumption that itnbsp;may ultimately be found to have priority when the investigation is complete. In fact, there is somenbsp;justification for this, since Walch, in 1771 (Die Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen zur Erlauterungnbsp;der Knorrischen Sammlung von Merkw�rdigkeiten der Natur, herausgegeben von Johann Ernstnbsp;Immanuel Walch, Dritter Theil, N�rnberg, 1771, p. 51), uses this term in the plural, � Carpolithi,� fornbsp;fossil fruits in general, taking pains on page 91 to give the Greek derivation from �apn-o? and Ai0o?,nbsp;but he does not seem to have used the singular, which would of course be Carpolithus. As, however,nbsp;his treatment was not systematic (binomial) it may be questioned whether this constitutes the earliestnbsp;use of the genus.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;L. F. W.

long. The fruits are elliptical or fusiform, about 8 mm. long and 4 mm. thick in their thickest portions. They are mostly much distortednbsp;hy pressure, but some show their former and true shape.

There are several known fossils with which this may be compared, but from which it is almost certainly, at least specifically, different.nbsp;It resembles an aggregation of nut-like fruits that Heer^ ascribes tonbsp;CzekanowsMa rigida, for no reason except that it is found on the samenbsp;rock specimen with leaves of that plant. Heer�s plant, however, hasnbsp;smaller nut-like seeds and the pairs are placed much farther apart thannbsp;they are in the plant from the California locality. Heer�s fossil hasnbsp;also the axis on which the pedicels are placed much straighter thannbsp;that of the plant now in question. This latter may also be comparednbsp;with Stachyojoitys Preslii Schenk, as figured by Schenk in Fossil Floranbsp;der Grenzschichten, pi. xliv, fig. 12, but the two plants are clearlynbsp;different species, for that of Schenk has smaller ribbed seeds of ovatenbsp;shape.

Fig. 4 gives a form showing the double nuts, and Fig. 6 represents a more complete form of larger size.

The collection referred to in the preceding pages, that was made by Mr. Stanton and referred by Mr. Ward to me for determination, wasnbsp;a small and imperfect one. A study of it left me in doubt as to itsnbsp;precise age. The conclusion to which I came was expressed in thenbsp;following words, quoted from a report made to Mr. Ward:

This flora is not older than the uppermost Trias and not younger than the Oolite. I feel prett}^ sure that it is true Rhetic, somewhat younger than the Los Broncesnbsp;flora of Newberry and the Virginia Mesozoic coal flora. It is much like the Rheticnbsp;flora of France made known by Saporta. It is a new grouping of plants. I do notnbsp;think the fossils now in hand suffice to fix narrowly the age, which may be lowernbsp;Jurassic.

The much more complete collection and better-preserved fossils obtained by Mr. Ward from the same beds give more satisfactorynbsp;data, although the evidence is not sufficient to fix conclusively withinnbsp;narrow limits the age of the formation. The collection made by Mr.nbsp;AAard, although much larger than that made by Mr. Stanton, and containing better-preserved plants, is still not large enough to be exhaustive. Correcting the results obtained from the examination of Mr.nbsp;Stanton�s collection by the facts made known by the studj^ of that ofnbsp;Mr. Ward, we find 28 distinct forms in the Oroville beds (see tablenbsp;below, p. 367).

1 Flora Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. II. Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostsibir. und des Amurlandes, p. 116, pi. XXI, fig. 8a.

Of these 28 dii�erent plants�for they are different, whatever may be their true place and affinities�14 are new and of no value for fixingnbsp;age by identitj^. Counting out the 'undetermined cone, we have onlynbsp;12 forms that may be compared with previously known ones. Sevennbsp;of these, viz, Cladophlebis spectabilis^ C. argutula, C. whitbiemisnbsp;tenuis a?, Thyrsoj)teris JfaaMana, Podozamites lanceolatus, Podo-zamites lanceolatus latifolius, Pinus JPordenshwldi?, were found bynbsp;Heer in the Jurassic formation, which he regarded as middle Brownnbsp;Jura, which is about the equivalent of the lower Oolite of Scarborough.nbsp;Of these, CladojMeMs spectcibilis and Podozamites lanceolatus are especially valuable for fixing age by determination of identitjL Clado-pJdebis spectahilis^ as stated in the notice of the species, is a t3�pe notnbsp;common among ferns, and it has a character that enables its identitynbsp;to be fixed by a small amount of material. The Podozamites also isnbsp;a form readiljquot; distinguished, while it- is, at Oroville, very abundantnbsp;and well preserved. Three of the plants whose identity wfith previously known ones is more or less fully made out are: Didyniosorusfnbsp;bindrabunensis?, Cladophlebis indica?^ and Pterojykyllum rajmalialensefnbsp;They wei�e all originally made known from the Kajmahal beds of Iiadia.nbsp;These Feistmantel regards as of Liassic age. None of the forms fromnbsp;Oroville are well enough preserved to enable us to make a veiy closenbsp;comparison with the India fossils. Although the establishment ofnbsp;icfentity is not certain, yet the existence of a close resemblance in tj'penbsp;has considerable value in determining age. This fact will be againnbsp;noticed farther on. The Pagiophyllum type of conifer is highlj^ characteristic of the Jurassic, and it is significant that the Oolitic form P.nbsp;IT illiamsonis is the only conifer of importance in, the Oroville flora.nbsp;It will be noticed that the proportion of conifers in this floi'a is remarkably small, the ferns and cycads making up most of the plants. Thisnbsp;is a feature that is more characteristic of the Older M�sozoic than of anynbsp;other flora. The only remaining plant possibly identical with a knownnbsp;one is the doubtful Sagenopteris JPilsoniana. This Sagenopteris isnbsp;most characteristic of the Rhetic. The Oroville specimen, standingnbsp;alone and being doubtful, can not have much weight.

Turning now to the plants which must be regarded as new, we find that, although we can not derive any evidence from their identity withnbsp;knowm forms, thej^ are not without indications that may be taken asnbsp;evidence of age. As was stated before, the prevalence of a particularnbsp;type is of value as indicating age. We find that certain types aboundnbsp;in the floras of particular ages, and are absent or rare in others. Fornbsp;example, the Alethopteris, Neuropteris, and Pecopteris types of fernsnbsp;are most characteristic of the Carboniferous. The Thj'rsopteris andnbsp;Cladophlebis type is conspicuous in the Mesozoic and most characteristic of the Jurassic.

]Miicrotffiniopteris is a type of fern that, in typical forms, can not be mistaken for anj^ other. Its range in time seems to have been fromnbsp;uppermost Trias to Oolite, reaching its maximum development, ifnbsp;Feistmantel is right as to the age of the Rajmahal series, in the Lias.nbsp;Now, although the amount of material obtained showing it in thenbsp;Oroville flora was not large, it was evidently a conspicuous plant innbsp;that flora. The most common species, M. californica, is nearernbsp;Macrotmniopteris {Twniopterh) lata of the Rajmahal flora than anynbsp;other plant. M. nervosa is unique. Even if neither of these speciesnbsp;bore any resemblance to known forms, the very fact that Macro-tseniopteris is an important type in a flora is evidence favorable fornbsp;the age being Jurassic.

The common Tieniopteris in the Oroville flora is so near T. tenui-ne7'vis, the characteristic one of the Infralias (Rhetic) of France, that it may be considered its representative, modified by differencesnbsp;in its surroundings. As this is a common type as late as thenbsp;Oolite, its presence need not indicate an age greater than the Lias.nbsp;CladojyMebis de7isifolia., if it has any relationship to known species,nbsp;is best compared with Pecopteris lobata Oldh., of the Rajmahalnbsp;series.

Adiantites m'ovillensis seems to be unique and not very near any known species. The Angiopteridium has A. McClellandi of thenbsp;Rajmahal series as its nearest plant.

The three new species of Ctenis belong to a type that begins in the Rhetic with the peculiar C. fallax of Nathorst and exists in the basalnbsp;Cretaceous in at least one species, G. inibricata Font., of the Potomacnbsp;of Virginia. Except in its inferior size, the Oolitic plant of Lindleynbsp;and Hutton, Ctenis falcata, seems to be the form nearest to the Oroville t3qie.

It should be noted, however, that in their general facies these plants are close to the large Pterophjdla of the Rajmahal series, the anastomosis of the nerves, which may be a special development, being thenbsp;principal difl'erence.

The large Ctenophjdla were evidently common and verjquot; important plants in the flora. Ctemophyllwm densifolium and C. grandifoliumnbsp;Storrsii were related to the C. gi'andifolium of the Virginia oldernbsp;iSIesozoic, the variety Storrsii being near enough to be regarded as anbsp;varietjquot; of the latter.

The small Ctenophylh jn. angustifolium has probably a near relationship to another Older Mesozoic plant, viz, C. Braunianum.

Caipolitlms Stoi'rsii appears to be unique. So far as any relationship can be made out for it it is with a Jurassic plant.

Putting the Oroville plants in the form of a table that shows the age of the plants nearest to them or identical with them, we maiquot; denote

The comparison of the Oroville plants with known floras shows that most of the forms for which any relationship with known plantsnbsp;can be made out And their like in the Lias and Oolite, or, without distinguishing these, in the Jurassic. As the Oolitic forms are predominant, we may conclude that the age of the flora is not only Jurassicnbsp;but rather late Jurassic, probal)ly about the age of lower Oolite. If

OLDEB MESOZOIC FLOBAS OF UNITED STATES.

this be correct, we may regard the fossils showing Rhetic athnities as survivors.^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^

As far back as 1872 and in subsequent years, Mr. Aurelius Todd, a mining engineer, then living in Oregon, now a resident of Florida,nbsp;while prospecting among the mountains of Douglas County, Oregon,nbsp;made collections of fossils from numerous points, and among thesenbsp;were many fossil plants. Some of the latter were collected on Bucknbsp;Mountain, which forms part of the watershed between Cow Creek andnbsp;Lookingglass Creek, two principal tributaries of the South Fork ofnbsp;the Umpqua River. Buck Mountain is about 8 miles nearly due westnbsp;of the town of Riddles. It has an altitude of about 3,500 feet abovenbsp;the level of the sea, and rises 2,000 feet above the beds of the streamsnbsp;that flow along its base. On the west side, flowing north, is Olallanbsp;Creek, a tributary of Lookingglass Creek. A branch of this, locallynbsp;called Thomson Creek, but named Hunter Creek on the Land Office

1 The careful reader of this paper who may be acquainted with Professor Fontaine�s brief report on the first collection from Oroville made by Dr. Stanton�s party as above set forth (see Journal of Geology,nbsp;Vol. Ill, pp. 395-396) may observe that Professor Fontaine does not explain specifically the changesnbsp;made in his determinations, but only states that the new and more abundant collections requirednbsp;the conclusions drawn from the early small collection to be modified and extended. It is, therefore,nbsp;perhaps worth while to attempt to clear the matter up at this time lest some one might ascribe to thenbsp;Oroville florula species mentioned in the first report that have not as j^et really been found there.nbsp;The only such species as to which Professor Fontaine spoke with any degree of confidence are thenbsp;following:

It happened that at the time Professor Fontaine was in Washington working up the large collection made by Mr. Storrs and myself, the small collection was still at the University of Virginia, a factnbsp;which I had overlooked until he arrived. I therefore requested him on his return to reexamine thenbsp;original collection at once, while the results of his study of the new one were fresh in his mind andnbsp;with his own sketches before him. This he did and reported that he found nothing additional in thenbsp;first collection. To make this all the more certain, he then and there attached labels to all thenbsp;specimens of Dr. Stanton�s collection and subsequently returned the whole and I embodied it in thenbsp;general collection.

I have been to the pains to go through, while preparing this paper, and note all the species, as thus labeled by him, that he found to occur in the original collection. They are the following:

A comparison of the two lists given will doubtless be sufficient to enable anyone at all acquainted with these forms to decide to which ones of those on the second list those on the first list most probably correspond.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;D. F. W.

map, flows westward along its base on the north side. On the south side two streams called Buck Creel^ and Doe Creek rise near its base,nbsp;flow south, and join Cow Creek below Nichols station on the Southernnbsp;Pacific Railroad. The mountain lies in latitude 43� 57' N., longitudenbsp;123� 30' W., from Greenwich, and in township 30 S., range 7 W., ofnbsp;Willamette meridian.

The locality at which Mr. Todd collected his specimens of fossil plants on Buck Mountain is about 300 feet below the summit on thenbsp;east side, in a gulch which it has been agreed to call Todd Gulch.nbsp;It lies north of Seven Spring Ridge, over which a trail runs from thenbsp;east, making the ascent of the mountain easy. Mr. Todd revisited thenbsp;localit}? in 1886 and made additional collections.

A single specimen from among Mr. Todd�s collections from this locality came into my hands in 1885 through Prof. W. H. Dali, whonbsp;turned it over with some shells to Dr. T. W. Stanton, and the latternbsp;passed it on to me. It was a prett}^ little fern, and Professor Fontainenbsp;subsequentl}^ identified it with Dryopteris monocarpa {Aspiditim mono-carpum. Font., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XV, 1892, p. 490, pi. Ixxxiii,nbsp;figs. 4-6, 6a), from the Kootanie of Great Falls, Montana. Thenbsp;specimen is recorded as No. 972 in the locality or lot catalogue ofnbsp;the Division of Paleobotany of the United States Geological Survey.

There are two other specimens now in my hands which I believe to have been collected at the same locality. They were received fromnbsp;Prof. J. S. Diller through Dr. T. W. Stanton, and were turned overnbsp;to me by the former in 1893. They bear the locality number 568, andnbsp;were recorded from data accompanying them as �from about sec. 16,nbsp;T. 30 S., R. 7 IV., Oregon Nickel mines. Riddles, Douglas County,nbsp;Oregon, elevation about 2,000 feet.� This accords sufficiently closelynbsp;with the Todd locality to admit of no serious doubt. The specimensnbsp;are covered by the same fern and the rock is of preciselj^ the samenbsp;character, but unfortunately the original label did not state when ornbsp;by whom they were collected. It is certain that they did not comenbsp;from the Oregon Nickel mines, which lie in range 6, 5 miles east ofnbsp;Puck Mountain, and no fossil plants haye ever been found in thatnbsp;vicinity. Professor Fontaine, while studying this material, observednbsp;the similarity in these specimens, and in a letter to me dated Januarynbsp;36, 1898, he says:

In studying the Oregon plants for description, I had regarded the fern visible on the two specimens credited to the Nickel mine, and numbered 668, as the same withnbsp;that on the specimen numbered 972, and credited to Todd�s locality, i. e., Bucksnbsp;Peak, 300 feet below its summit. On comparing these specimens again, after washing them, to see if they were really the same ferns, 1 found on the Nickel minenbsp;specimens inconspicuous imprints of a conifer, Sphenolepidium. Kurrianum, that I hadnbsp;not observed before. This led me to examine the supposed Todd specimen carefully, to see if any conifers were shown on that. I had begun to suspect that thenbsp;specimens all came from the same place, as the ferns are identical and the shalenbsp;20 GEOL, PT 2-24

carrying them is exactly similar, I found on Todd�s spetdinen the same conifer, obviously the counterpart of the impression on the Nickel mine specimens, but notnbsp;exactly corresponding to them in dimension. On trying to fit the specimens togethernbsp;I found they nearly fitted. The conifer impressions occur on all the specimens onnbsp;the side opposite to that which carries the much more distinct fern impressions.nbsp;On this side there is a thin layer of soft, flaky shale, in which the conifer impressionsnbsp;occur. Rubbing in transportation had almost hidden the imprints previouslynbsp;obscure. Hence they were overlooked in the former examination. Either in thenbsp;original splitting of the rock to obtain the specimens, or in subsequent transport,nbsp;flakes of the soft shale layer carrying the coniferous imprints had been removednbsp;from the rock specimens, hence they do not exactly fit together, and the conifernbsp;imprints do not exactly correspond.

1 have fully confirmed this description by a careful comparison of the specimens since they were returned, and I no longer doubt thatnbsp;they are all parts of the same piece of shale. They were, of course,nbsp;probably all collected by Todd at the same time, but it might havenbsp;happened that a subsequent collector picked up the two additionalnbsp;pieces left by Mr. Todd.

A large number of other small collections had been made from time to time in Douglas County, but they were either from the marinenbsp;shell-bearing Knoxville and Horsetown beds or from the Eocene rocksnbsp;of that region and therefore do not concern us here, but those fromnbsp;the Cretaceous will be treated in the second paper (Part II) of thisnbsp;series. There was considerable confusion in the labels of all thesenbsp;plants and for a long time all the Mesozoic forms were believed tonbsp;represent the Shasta group (Knoxville and Horsetown beds), but thenbsp;Buck Mountain region presented some serious stratigraphical difficulties. These Professor Diller was very anxious to clear up beforenbsp;mapping the region. In 1896 he visited the Buck Mountain districtnbsp;and made a somewhat hurined reconnaissance. A fos.sil-plant bed wasnbsp;discovered by Mr. James Storrs, of his party, and a small collectionnbsp;made and shipped to 'Washington. In transmitting this collection tonbsp;me through the Director of the Survey he says, in his letter to thenbsp;Director dated November 18, 1896, that the specimens �were obtainednbsp;from rocks which appear to underlie the Lower Cretaceous,� and adds:

These fossils come from a locality which promises to yield a rich harvest to the collector. They were found too late in the day to make a more extensive collection,nbsp;but it is hoped that enough were obtained to indicate the geological age. No othernbsp;fossils whatever were found in the same or immediately associated strata.

This locality is at the base of Buck Mountain on the northwest side, in section 3 of the .same township and range, on the tributary ofnbsp;Olalla^ Creek above referred to as Thompson or Hunter Creek. Thesenbsp;plants came into my hands in the autumn of that year and I made a

1 The beds at this point will for convenience be referred to as the Olalla Creek beds. Olalla is the Indian word for berries, the black raspberry and other berries being abundant In this region, and it isnbsp;said that the term originally applied to the country all about the head of Olalla Creek and that allnbsp;the streams went by that name.

somewhat careful preliminary study of them before sending them to Professor Fontaine for final determination. In my letter to him datednbsp;Januaiy 8, 1897, transmitting them, I said;

There is a Tseniopteris that seems to be T. orovillensis or something very near that, and it is the commonest plant in the collection. The other things are different innbsp;the main from the Oroville plants, but I believe they are as old.

I wish you could look over this collection pretty soon and let me know whether you think it is Jurassic and whether you think it important, because Mr. Storrs madenbsp;it all in one day in a great hurry, and I understand there is plenty more.

Professor Fontaine made the following prompt preliminary report on this collection:

I have examined the Douglas County fossils and have no doubt that this is essentially the same flora as that of Oroville. The material is coarse and does not preserve the plants very well, but so far as I can judge from the impressions, there is a remarkably large number of identical forms here and at Oroville. Of course I would notnbsp;like to give a final decision on forms from such imperfect material, but it seems tonbsp;me that Tamioptms orovillenm occurs here and perhaps a larger form. Ctenophyllumnbsp;wigustifolium seems to be common. Several of the small ferns seem identical withnbsp;Oroville forms. The Oroville Sagenopteris almost certainly occurs here, also annbsp;Angiopteridium like that of Oroville. Some fragments look much like the Cteno-phylla of Oroville with coarse nerves. I^erophyllum rajmahalense is probably foundnbsp;here.

The Oroville plants ought to be figured for comparison before these are worked up.

I certainly think that a larger collection ought to be made before a final determination can be formed. I should think that the strata would yield some shale bands W'hich would preserve the fossils better. However, for a �haphazard�^ collectionnbsp;in one day, this is a remarkable yield.

Professor Diller was informed of these results and the importance of increasing the amount of material and of making a more carefulnbsp;study of the stratig�raphical position of these beds and their relationnbsp;to the bed near the summit of Buck Mountain yielding the specimensnbsp;collected by Mr. Todd. On June 30,1897, Mr. Storrs returned to thenbsp;locality and made a much larger collection, which was at once transmitted to me, through the Director of the Survey. In his letter tonbsp;the Director, dated July 4, 1897, Professor Diller says:

By this mail I have the honor to transmit seven packages of specimens of fossil plants from the locality on Olalla Creek, at which a number of similar specimens werenbsp;collected last year by Mr. Storrs. I respectfully request that they be referred tonbsp;Brofessor Ward for study and report. For his information I desire to say that thenbsp;plant beds appear to belong to the series of strata containing Aucella. Specimens ofnbsp;the Aucella were collected in shales which appear to underlie the leaf beds and willnbsp;be sent also by this mail for examination. The Aucellse are from Buck Peak, at thenbsp;base of which the leaves occur, and do not appear to have the characteristics of thenbsp;Jurassic Aucellse, but rather those of the Knoxville beds.

As a consequence of all this a lively correspondence took place during the summer of 1897, participated in by Professors Diller and h on-taine, Mr. Storrs, and myself, as to the probable age of the plantbearing beds, and in the course of which Professer Diller succeeded in locating Mr. Aurelius Todd at Dunedin, Florida, and obtaining from

him, through a letter dated September 12, a full statement of his early operations in this field. In this letter Mr. Todd says:

Yoursof August 18 at hand. Inclosed I send you a drawing as I remember the place and which I think you will find very nearly correct. I revisited the place in 1896,nbsp;and got all I could find in half an hour, but as they are in a solid bluff I think younbsp;will have little trouble it persevering in getting all you w'ant. However, if you failnbsp;I have a lot in Eugene, Oregon, which you are quite welcome to if you can find t hem,nbsp;but they will have to be sent me here for identification, I fear, as they are not allnbsp;labeled. If you have occasion to visit Eugene go to Professor Condon and make yournbsp;wants known. Then go to Horn amp; Pain�s gun store (Sporting Emporium) and looknbsp;through the specimens I left there. Then go to the house on the corner of Fourteenthnbsp;and Hilyard streets. I left some boxes there containing my duplicates packed up innbsp;their barn in boxes. Go through them and take what there is you w'ant. All thenbsp;Aucella in conglomerate came from Big Buck Mountain; those in lime from nearnbsp;Riddles or Big Pine; the ferns in shale from Big Buck Mountain. I gave Dr. Snapp,nbsp;of Cottage Grove, Oregon, an order for these things, but I think he has never movednbsp;them nor does he care for the specimens. I know you can get them if they have notnbsp;been destroyed. I have forgotten the man�s name who owns the house now. I amnbsp;very sorry I did not get to accompany you in jmur work in that section. 1 havenbsp;found it one of much interest.

Let me hear of your success in visiting the old Buck Mountain fossils. 1 spent many an interesting day and night roaming those hills, prospecting, hunting, andnbsp;mining, during the early seventies, and my older brother was killed in Lookingglassnbsp;the day I discovered this same fossil bed and about the time of day�thrown from anbsp;horse and dragged�in August, 1872.

It will be seen that this last statement in Mr. Todd�s letter fixes the . date of his collections. The drawing that accompanied the letter isnbsp;remarkably accurate, considering that it was made twenty-four yearsnbsp;after the collections were made, and eleven years since he had seennbsp;the place. It also contained directions how to go to find the placenbsp;without danger of mistake. Professor Diller received this letternbsp;while in the field at Myrtle Point.

Armed with this document, Mr. Storrs, very soon after its arrival, revisited the Buck Mountain region. He had no difficulty in findingnbsp;and identifying Mr. Todd�s locality, and he collected quite a numbernbsp;of plants, chiefly ferns, from it. He also revisited his other localitiesnbsp;on Olalla Creek and made further collections there, extending the rangenbsp;considerably. These specimens were subjected to a critical preliminarynbsp;examination by both Professor Fontaine and m3fself. The occurrencenbsp;of a number of ferns associated with the cycadean forms in the Olallanbsp;Creek beds and having much the same facies as those from Toddnbsp;Gulch on the mountain began to shake the hitherto somewhat settlednbsp;opinion that the two beds must be of different age, the latter nevernbsp;having been suspected of being Jurassic. After further study of thenbsp;collections from both localities. Professor Fontaine, in a letter datednbsp;Januarj^ 7, 1898, says:

I have been including Todd�s specimen and the other Oregon plants in the description of the Shasta flora, because they were sent as occurring in that group. There is,

however, nothing in the nature of these plants to compel one to regard them as Lower Cretaceous. They may very well he of the age of the Oroville plants. They arenbsp;pretty old looking. Why may not Todd�s plant bed be the same as that on Olallanbsp;Creek (Diller�s No. 2 bed), with the plants like those of Oroville, and both Jurassic?

I have examined all the collections from the horizon (Olalla Creek), apparently above the Aucella beds of Buck Peak, and find that they indicate a flora of essentially the same age, and that it is apparently Jurassic, of the same age with that ofnbsp;Oroville. Mr. Storrs has made a pretty good collection from Todd�s old locality.nbsp;Unfortunately, nearly all of the fossils from this place are ferns, and ferns are not thenbsp;best kind of fossils to determine geological age. The plants from this locality seem tonbsp;belong to a flora of essentially the same age as that from the Olalla Creek, and to benbsp;Jurassic and not Cretaceous. Many of them, it is true, are different from those ofnbsp;Olalla Creek, but a number are the same, and my impression, from this preliminarynbsp;examination, decidedly is that the floras of the Todd locality and Olalla Creek arenbsp;not essentially different in age from that of Oroville. Mr. Storrs has got some finenbsp;plants from Olalla Creek. Among them are fine Ginkgos, probably of more thannbsp;one species, with broad lobes, of the type of the Jurassic Ginkgos, G. digitala and G.nbsp;Iluttoni. � �nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�

During the season of 1898 additional collections from the Olalla Creek beds were made Mr. Will Q. Brown, of Riddles, Oregon,nbsp;and Mr. Claude Rice, which the}� offered to send to Washington fornbsp;determination, but, in view of the amount of material alreadj� in handnbsp;and the still existing confusion as to the stratigraphy, no effort wasnbsp;made to secure them. Mr. Brown, however, collected and turnednbsp;over to Professor Diller a few plant remains from a railroad cut halfnbsp;a mile north of Nichols station, just south of the whistling post fornbsp;that station. The railroad here follows the left bank of Cow Creek,nbsp;and the locality is close to that stream. Nichols station is 7 milesnbsp;exactly due south of the plant beds on Olalla Creek, and also duenbsp;south of the locality on Bucks Peak. The plants from this localitynbsp;closely resemble those obtained at the more northern points, and hencenbsp;had an especial interest. They were sent to Professor Fontaine, and,nbsp;in a letter by him to Professor Diller, dated April 12, 1899, he says:

The locality, �Railroad cut near whistling post, one-half mile north of Nichols, Uouglas County, Oregon,� is a very promising one and seems to contain a greatnbsp;variety of plants. The specimens sent are quite fragmentary, but they indicate overnbsp;20 different species, which, I think, show that the strata are of Horsetown age. Thisnbsp;locality should have additional collections made from it.

These fossils Mr. Brown expected to be Jurassic. It seems much more probable that they are Cretaceous. If the ones from the Olalla region are the same as thosenbsp;at Oroville, this locality assumes very great importance in furnishing an opportunitynbsp;to study the flora which will connect the Upper Jurassic and the Oretaceou.s. Werenbsp;it not for the fossil plants I should not hesitate to put all of the rocks in the Cretaceous. If they are not Cretaceous, however, it is important that the line should benbsp;drawn between them and their relation determined, for it is between the upper

Jurassic and the Cretaceous that some of the most important movements of the Pacific coast have occurred. I have just dictated a letter to the Director requestingnbsp;that, if possible, arrangements be made to have that field studied this summer bynbsp;some paleobotanist.

I wish you would go out and collect from Mr. Brown�s localities. I was especially struck with his locality, �Railroad cut near whistling post, one-half mile northnbsp;of Nichols,� etc. He got about 24 specimens from that place and nearly all ofnbsp;them were different species. Some of them seem to be new species and genera.nbsp;The material seems to preserve the plants well. I am sure fine and interestingnbsp;plants can be gotten there.

Such was the condition of things at the beginning of the field season of 1899, and acting upon the suggestions of Professor Diller and Professor Fontaine 1 presented the matter to the Director on Maj^ 1, innbsp;the following form:

There is a small region in the vicinity of Riddles, including Buck Mountain, Olalla Creek, Cow Creek, etc., in which the strata are much disturbed, but which seems tonbsp;be the key to the geology of that whole country. The geologists have not been ablenbsp;to work it out. There are few animal fossils, but an abundance of vegetable fossils;nbsp;these latter are clear and fairly diagnostic, and seem to indicate two or three horizonsnbsp;extending down to the Jurassic. A large number of small collections have beennbsp;made from this region at various times by different collectors, some of them amateurs, others geologists making hasty reconnoissances, and in only a few cases bynbsp;collectors who have any skill in selecting material. What is needed is, as I statednbsp;in my previous letter, for someone to go there who can recognize the species andnbsp;carefully work out the stratigraphical relations of the different classes of material.nbsp;If this could be done, even though no collections at all were made, the object whichnbsp;Professor Diller wishes to secure would be accomplished. Still, it would be better tonbsp;make additional collections at critical points, especially as Professor Fontaine, innbsp;working up the material, has carefully indicated the localities from which furthernbsp;collections need to be made.

I received instructions to visit this region, and arranged with Mr. AVill Q. Brown, mining engineer, at Riddles, Oregon, to provide annbsp;outfit and accompany me as guide and scientific assistant. I also wrotenbsp;to Professor Diller at his camp at Myrtle Point, on the coast due westnbsp;of there, urging him, if possible, to join us, in the hope that all ofnbsp;us working together might succeed in tracing out the complicatednbsp;sti�atigraphy. Owing to work in hand that must he finished before Inbsp;could go, and to the necessity of stopping for a week in Wyoming tonbsp;examine the J urassic cjmad locality in the Freezeout Hills, I was unablenbsp;to reach Riddles until September 10. Mr. Brown had the outfit innbsp;readiness and Professor Diller and Mr. Storrs were on the ground.nbsp;The party left Riddles on the 11th and proceeded at once with packnbsp;and riding animals to the Buck Mountain region, distant only 9 milesnbsp;by a mountain trail, and camped at the foot of the mountain on thenbsp;north side, on the branch of Olalla Creek called Thompson or Hunternbsp;Creek, in the bed of which, some distance below, Mr. Storrs had firstnbsp;obtained the plants denoting a Jurassic age. Five days were spent

here, and all the localities were visited, several new ones found, and the whole district searchingly exploi'ed. Buck Mountain was severalnbsp;times climbed, the original locality of Mr. Todd carefully worked, andnbsp;other plant-bearing beds discovered in the Todd Gulch below, and atnbsp;other points both north and south of this. The collections from thisnbsp;region were no longer confined to ferns, but included several of thenbsp;other distinctively Jurassic types of vegetation found below.

The most extensive collections were made in beds of slate overhung heavy conglomerates on the above-mentioned stream nearly due northnbsp;of Buck Peak. The Hydraulic Gold Mining Companhas dammednbsp;the stream at this point and built a conduit to the mines some distancenbsp;below. The plant-bearing slates commence immediately below thenbsp;dam, and it was in this first or stratigraphically lowest bed that Mr.nbsp;Storrs made his principal previous collections. The beds have a dipnbsp;toward the coast of from 35� to 40� and the strike is from 15� to 20�nbsp;east of north, but in tracing them up the mountain side the strike wasnbsp;found to vary considerably. This plant-bearing stratum is onlj' a fewnbsp;feet thick, and is overlain by a bed of conglomerate 50 feet or more innbsp;thickness. Following the bed of the stream down, this is crossed andnbsp;another bed of slate is encountered, similar in genei�al appearance tonbsp;the first. This is also plant-bearing, and yielded by far the larger partnbsp;of the specimens collected. It also preserved them better, and the mostnbsp;complete impressions were found here. Although the principal plant-yielding strata of the two beds of slate are separated by about 75 feetnbsp;of vertical thickness, no very marked difference in the flora was apparent. Certain ferns in the lower bed were less common in the upper,nbsp;and the latter jdelded a larger proportion of broad-leaved cycadeannbsp;genera, such as Ctenis, Ctenoph3dlum, and perhaps Pteroph3dIum.nbsp;The species of Ginkgo, mentioned by Professor Fontaine (supra, p. 373)nbsp;as occurring in Mr. Storrs�s collection, is one of the most abundantnbsp;fossils of this upper horizon, and ver3quot; fine specimens were obtained.nbsp;It is possible, as he suggests, that more than one species are represented, as some specimens have shorter, blunt lobes and others longnbsp;and pointed ones.

This form, although not found in the Oroville flora, reall3quot; constitutes one of the strongest proofs that we have of the Jurassic age of the beds. The digitate-leaved Ginkgos are an ancient type and marknbsp;a special stage in the progress from the Baiei�a of the Rhetic to thenbsp;only slightly lobed Ginkgo of the late Cretaceous, the Tertiaiy, and thenbsp;present. It is characteristic of the Brown Jura (Lias or earl3^ Oolite)nbsp;of Siberia. Associated with this form were found fruits which maynbsp;have been borne by them.

It may be added that these Ginkgo forms were also found on Buck Mountain. Professor Diller and Mr. Brown brought in a specimennbsp;On the 13th, which they collected in a gulch some distance north of

Todd Gulch, and on the 15th Mr. Storrs and I found them not only in the original Todd locality, but lower in the same gulch at two horizons, one 20 feet and the other 30 feet lower in the beds.

Professor Diller and Mr. Brown devoted the greater part of the time to carefully working out the stratigraphy. They followed thenbsp;plant-bearing slates all the way from Olalla Creek to the Todd Gulchnbsp;and proved their complete continuity. On Olalla Creek these slatesnbsp;are immediately overlain by the Eocene, only a short distance belownbsp;the uppermost plant bed. On Buck Mountain, on the contrary, theynbsp;are overlain by a bed of conglomerate, doubtless of the same age, whichnbsp;underlies the Aucella-bearing Knoxville beds on which the Eocene herenbsp;rests. Everywhere to the east is a very thick bed of conglomerate,nbsp;through which is intruded a great thickness of eruptive rock, principally serpentine. Still farther east, on the Nickel Mountain, are othernbsp;Aucella beds, as if occupying the eastern slope of a great Mesozoicnbsp;anticline, and when the bed of Cow Creek is reached at Kiddles thenbsp;higher Horsetown beds appear in force.

Such seems to be a general view of the much-discussed stratigraphy of the Buck Mountain region, and thus far the fossil plants furnishnbsp;the only evidence of the existence of a great Jurassic deposit runningnbsp;through the State of Oregon; but this evidence is not onlj^ conclusivenbsp;from a paleontological point of view, but when correlated with all thenbsp;remaining facts and worked out, as was done by our party, it provesnbsp;to be perfectly harmonious and consistent.

There remained the problem presented by Mr. Brown�s collection from near Nichols station, on Cow Creek, Id miles above and nearlynbsp;southwest from Riddles. A glance at the map shows that Nicholsnbsp;station is exactly due south of Buck Beak, and all the plant localitiesnbsp;in the Buck Mountain region are arranged along a nearly north-southnbsp;line. The strike of the slates, as was shown, varies considerably evennbsp;in short distances, but probably averages nearty north and south.nbsp;The distance in a straight line from the Olalla bed to the Nichols bednbsp;is nearly T miles due south. We were unable to follow the strike withnbsp;our pack train, l)ut were obliged to go down one of the tributaries ofnbsp;Doe Creek from the eastern slope of Buck Mountain and then to follow Doe Creek to its junction with Cow Creek, 3 miles below Nicholsnbsp;station, thus avoiding the great Table Mountain on the west.

Very little additional to Mr. Brown�s collection was found in the railroad cutting, but it was seen that we had here the same slates as those of the Buck Mountain district and that they came in in a regular waynbsp;from the north. At this point Cow Creek has a course slightly westnbsp;of north and the slates cross its channel very obliquely and even follow the l)ed of the stream for some distance. At the point where theynbsp;emerge on the right bank to the north they expose their upturnednbsp;edges for a long distance over that portion- of the stream bed which is

not overflowed in the drj^ season. Here was a fine opportuniH to examine them, and although it is usually difficult to obtain large slabsnbsp;l3dng in such a position, \mt, from the easj^ cleavage and generalijnnbsp;workable character of these slates, we were able to woi�k out finenbsp;pieces and secure good specimens. The slates here are nearljn vertical; in fact, there seems to be an easterly dip, as if they werenbsp;tilted more than 90�. They have a thickness of about 200 feet, withnbsp;no conglomerate bands. Thej' are full of plants of tjnpical Jurassicnbsp;types. Most of the Olalla Creek forms occur, including the Ginkgonbsp;and the leading cycadaceous genera, Ctenis, Ctenophyllum, Pteroza-mites, Pterophyllum, etc. Some of the same ferns, notabljn a narrownbsp;Angiopteridium, were found present at nearty all the Buck Mountainnbsp;localities. Besides these, a number of forms not seen farther northnbsp;were collected, including manjr long, narrow coniferous leaves resembling those of Cephalotaxus or Taxodium, but showing fine transversenbsp;strife on both sides of the midrib. A large collection was made.

Professor Hiller and Mr. Brown worked out the stratigraphy in the same manner as in the Buck Mountain district. It is more complicated, and the Knoxville beds occur on Iron Mountain Creek not morenbsp;than a mile east of the Jurassic outcrop. Eocene plant-bearing bedsnbsp;lie� on the hills on both sides of Cow Creek, and it is eviiient that muchnbsp;still remains to be done before all will be made clear, but the generalnbsp;fact seems established that a Jurassic deposit of unknown extent andnbsp;of considerable thickness trends through these mountains from northnbsp;to south, which can no longer be overlooked in treating the geologj^nbsp;of Oregon.

A considerable number of cycadean trunks have been found in beds that are referred with more or less certainty to the Jurassic. Therenbsp;are as yet, however, only two sources of such material, and one ofnbsp;these is of doubtful age and is only represented by a single specimen.nbsp;This locality^ is in Colorado. The other locality is in Wyoming, andnbsp;there is no doubt as to its Jurassic age. I will treat the Coloradonbsp;trunk first.

Early in the summer of 1896 Dr. F. H. Knowlton and Dr. T. W. Stanton, in passing through the museum of the State School of Minesnbsp;at Golden, Colorado, observed a cjmadean trunk on exhibition there,nbsp;and made inquiries relative to its source. In a letter which I receivednbsp;from Dr. Knowlton soon after this, dated June 18, 1896, he says:

Dr. Stanton and I visited Golden yesterday, and as a preliminary went through the collections belonging to the State Mining School. One of the first things thatnbsp;I saw was a beautiful silicified cycad trunk. It was about 2 feet in height, regularly

oval in cross section, the long diameter being about 12 inches and the short diameter about 8 inches. It came from the vicinity of Boulder, Colorado, and it is said tonbsp;have been two or three times as long as now w'hen first discovered. It was found innbsp;excavating for a railroad, and was smashed and buried�all but this piece�before itsnbsp;value was recognized. It is the same size throughout, and is hardly at all worn. Itnbsp;looks very much like one of the Black Hills specimens.

Knowing that Professor Jenney, who had shown so much interest in the C3mads of the Black Hills, was at the time in Denver, and presumingnbsp;that he was familiar with matters at the Colorado State School ofnbsp;Mines, I immediately wrote to him and asked him to assist me innbsp;securing, if possible, the loan of this specimen to the Geological Surveynbsp;or National Museum long enough to describe it and report upon it.nbsp;He communicated with President Regis Chauvenet, of the State Schoolnbsp;of Mines, and prepared the way for a correspondence on the subject.nbsp;I wi�ote to President Chauvenet in September, and received a replynbsp;from Prof. Horace B. Patton, dated September 30,1896, in which henbsp;saj's:

Your letter of recent date, asking for the loan of the cycad in the possession of the Colorado State School of Mines, has been received, also the photographs of cycads,nbsp;for which please accept our thanks. W e take pleasure in sending the cycad as younbsp;suggest. It was accordingly shipped several days ago by freight to the Nationalnbsp;Museum. I am sorry that I can not tell much as to the locality where it was found.nbsp;It was secured by a certain J. Alden Smith in a railroad excavation near Boulder,nbsp;Colorado. Mr. Smith was able to secure only one piece, although he was told bynbsp;workmen that others belonging to the same piece had been found, but they werenbsp;covered up somewhere in the dump. This was probably not less than ten or twelvenbsp;years ago. Mr. Smith has been dead for some years. The above information Inbsp;secured from President Chauvenet of this school, who bought the cycad with thenbsp;rest of a large collection from Mr. Smith.

The specimen arrived in due time and is still in my hands, awaiting an appropriate occasion to publish a description of it. The description here given was written in 1897, and the photographs used innbsp;illustrating it were taken by Mr. T. W. Smillie, in the gallery of thenbsp;U. S. National Museum, soon after the specimen was received.

Trunk large and rather tall, simple, much compressed laterally, thoroughly silicified, of a uniform black color externally and internally, very hard and heavj^, 1 meter or more in height, 40 to 50nbsp;cm. in greater diameter, 25 to 30 cm. in lesser, with a girth ofnbsp;about 1 meter; organs of the armor descending below the middle; leafnbsp;scars arranged in two I'egular and distinct spiral rows around the

trunk, those passing from left to right forming an angle of about 30� and those from right to left of about 45� with the vertical axis; scarsnbsp;of the usual size, nearly triangular in shape, rarely somewhat archednbsp;above, but sometimes concave, so as to appear inversely heart-shaped,nbsp;the upper side of the triangle nearly horizontal, the other two sidesnbsp;in line with the rows of scars, thus making difi'ei'ent angles with thenbsp;axis, the three angles all sharp, averaging 20 mm. wide by 15 mm.nbsp;high, Avhile the right and left sides of the triangle are respecth^eh^nbsp;16 mm. and 18 mm.; leaf bases always present 1 to 3 cm. below thenbsp;surface, their summits level or slightly concave indicating a naturalnbsp;plane of disarticulation, presenting a roughened or spongy surfacenbsp;without pits or visible bundle scars, usually traversed by thin longitudinal dikes crossing one another at varying angles; ramentaceousnbsp;walls very thick, 5 to 8 mm., with thickenings in the angles of thenbsp;scars often as large as the scars themselves, rough and wrinkled on thenbsp;outer edges, homogeneous but having a very thin (0.5 mm.) layernbsp;lining the inside of the scars, which may be the periderm of the petioles; reproductive organs very abundant and well developed, one innbsp;the axil of each leaf standing over the upper side of the scar andnbsp;sometimes depressing it so as to cause the inversely heart-shapednbsp;appearance of the scars, making the walls on that side very thin ornbsp;remoAung them altogether and exposing the bud on the upper .sidenbsp;of the scar, elliptical in cross-section, 25 mm. in horizontal and 15 mm.nbsp;in vertical thickness, their summits flush with the upper edges of thenbsp;walls or rising slightly above them, rarely projecting, always fillednbsp;with the remains of the organs composing them and showing a concentric structure with a heterogeneous center, the crescent-shapednbsp;involucral bract scars mostly at the ends of the ellipses and extendingnbsp;far out along the walls, sometimes aggregated at other points denoting abortive buds; armor very thick, 5 to 6 cm., separated fromnbsp;the axis by a definite but irregular or jagged line; woody zone 2 tonbsp;7 cm. thick, consisting of a homogeneous, black, cherty or partiallynbsp;chalcedonized substance showing concoidal fracture without diAnsionnbsp;into rings or traces of bundles or medullary rays; medulla faintlynbsp;distinguishable from the wood, compressed into a slab 3 cm. thick andnbsp;20 to 25 cm. Avide in the only specimen known.

A large specimen of a trunk that was much compressed laterally, containing moi�e than half the basal portion. It is broken by a somewhat even A^ertical fracture in the plane of the minor diameter a littlenbsp;to one side of the center, and also broken across obliquely aboA^e, sonbsp;that the vertical fracture constitutes the shorter side. The amountnbsp;that is wanting aboAm is unknown, but Dr. KnoAvlton�s statement thatnbsp;� it is said to haA^e been two or three times as long,� was probably annbsp;exaggeration on the part of his informant. Still, it might well haA^enbsp;been considerably longer. It is scarcely at all Avorn, and is in an

excellent state of preservation. It is of a nearly uniform black color, thoroughly silicified, with a cherty aspect in places, and high specificnbsp;gravit3L The total weight is 3i.93 kilograms.

Its maximum height is 40 cm., but the base is 5 cm. lower in the middle than elsewhere, and the upper fracture is oblique both ways,nbsp;so that the length of the minor face is only 28 cm., and that of thenbsp;side opposite 32 cm. The partial major axis, which is nearly the samenbsp;at all points, is about 26 cm., and the minor axis varies from 20 to 24nbsp;cm., being greatest near the base. The partial girth (exclnsive of thenbsp;broken inner face) is from 58 to 60 cm.

The organs of the armor are slightly declined throughout the entire length, the angle diminishing upward. They were probablj^ horizontal on the lost upper portion of the trunk. The leaf scars arenbsp;arranged in two regular and distinct spiral rows around the trunk,nbsp;those ascending from left to right forming an angle of about 30�,nbsp;those from right to left of about 46� with the vertical axis. One ofnbsp;the former would make a revolution in about 1 meter, one of thenbsp;latter in about 66 cm.

The scars are of about the normal size and nearly- triangular, rarely somewhat arched above, but sometimes concave, so as to appear inverselynbsp;heart-shaped. The upper side of the triangle is nearly horizontal andnbsp;the other two sides are in the line of the two rows of scars respectively,nbsp;what may be called the right side being steeper than the left, and thenbsp;lower angle a little to the right of the center of the upper side. Thenbsp;sides are thus of slightlj'^ different lengths, the upper longer than eithernbsp;of the others and the left longer than the right. Where the uppernbsp;side is 20 mm., which is about the average, the left side will be 18 mm.nbsp;and the right side 16 mm. The distance from the lower angle to thenbsp;center of the upper side averages about 16 mm.

The leaf bases are alwa3^s present at a certain depth, usuall3^ 1 cm. but sometimes 3 cm. or more. Their summits are nearly level ornbsp;slightly concave, and there seems to be a joint at which they are usuallynbsp;disarticulated. The3quot; present a roughened or spongy appearance without pits or bundle scars, but in some cases they seem to be traversednbsp;bv thin longitudinal dikes crossing one another at varying angles.

The walls are ver3quot; thick, 6 to 8 mm., with large thickenings in the angles of the scars, often as large as the scars themselves. The scarsnbsp;are lined with a Ia3mr0.5mm. thick, the union of which with the wallsnbsp;can generally be seen; otherwise the walls are nearly homogeneousnbsp;and rough on the outer edges.

Reproductive organs are veiy abundant and well developed. There is practicalh' one in the axil of ever3quot; leaf. The3^ stand for the most partnbsp;directlv over the upper side of the scar, and sometimes depress thatnbsp;side, but usuall3^ the effect is confined to a considerable thinning of the

wall on that side, and in a few cases the wall has disappeared here, leaving the bud exposed on the upper side of the leaf scar. The budsnbsp;are elliptical in form and average about 25 mm. in horizontal and 15 mm.nbsp;in vertical thickness (major and minor axes of cross section). Theynbsp;are flush with the upper edges of the walls and sometimes rise a littlenbsp;above them, but rarely project; still they serve to give the trunk anbsp;rough, uneven surface. They are never wanting so as to leave a cavity,nbsp;and they all clearly show a concentric structure with a heterogeneousnbsp;center, due to the form of the essential organs. Crescent-shaped bractnbsp;scars occur, especially at the ends of the ellipse, but are not generallynbsp;arranged all round the organ. The bases of the bracts are often preserved flush with the surface. The bract scars sometimes stragglenbsp;away to some distance and appear in the walls remote from the buds,nbsp;and there are a few abortive buds represented only by such scars.

The ai�mor is very thick and nearly the same on the flattened sides as on the rounded edge of the trunk. It is everywhere between 5 cm.nbsp;and 6 cm., and some of the leaf bases exceed 6 cm. in length. It is beautifully shown all round the broken portions, where the leaf basis, thenbsp;walls, and the reproductive organs are exposed. The last named arenbsp;usually much decayed, at least in their outer portions, but the centralnbsp;parts may be preserved. Some of them resemble the Bennetties Mori-erei fruit studied bj�� Lignier.

The axis is well exposed over the whole surface of the vertical and oblique fracture, a length of 46 cm., and the somewhat regular linenbsp;separating the armor from it is fairly distinct, but the internal tissuenbsp;is an apparently homogeneous black, cherty, or partially chalcedonizednbsp;rock, showing conchoidal fracture and revealing to macroscopic inspection no differentiation into la3mrs or rings and no ti�aces of bundles.nbsp;There is a faint indication of the distinction between wood and pith.nbsp;As seen along this broken surface, whether on the vertical fracturenbsp;showing the longitudinal section or near the summit where the fracturenbsp;makes an angle of about 45� to the axis, the thickness is nearly uniform throughout and does not exceed 7 cm. Of this the medulla probably occupies about 3 cm., leaving the wood on an average 2 cm. thick.nbsp;The axis, therefore, has the form of a flat slab, which may havenbsp;been 20 or 25 cm. wide. The width to the vertical fracture is overnbsp;15 cm.

In February of the present year (1900) Mr. George R. Wieland, who is engaged in working out the internal structure of the cycadeannbsp;trunks at the Yale Museum, visited Washington for the purpose ofnbsp;examining the material in the United States National Museum, andnbsp;when shown this trunk he expressed the belief that it would probablynbsp;show structure, especially in some of the numerous fruits, and offerednbsp;to examine it from this point of view if-supplied with such parts as he

should select from near the fractured surface that could be easily detached without injury to the specimen. I had taken the precautionnbsp;to obtain permission from the State School of Mines of Colorado tonbsp;have sections cut in case this seemed advisable, and Mr. Wieland tooknbsp;to New Haven seyeral detached fruits, which he has carefully examined. While the proofs of this paper were passing through my handsnbsp;I received a letter from him, dated March 17, 1900, giving the resultsnbsp;of his investigations, which I am glad to introduce here as a fittingnbsp;supplement to the above description, and as a welcome addition to ournbsp;knowledge of this interesting specimen. Mr. Wieland says:

I am unable to find even basal portions of fruits in the Boulder cycad, only the peduncles surrounded by very large bracts. The sections made, even when quite thin, show the dense blackness and requirenbsp;veiy careful polishing to reach the thinness requisite to bring out structure. Each of those axes which seemed so much like fruits in a rathernbsp;early stage is then seen to consist of a rather slender peduncle, surrounded by five or more bracts, whose transverse section is almost asnbsp;large as that of the peduncle itself. The whole is deeply embedded innbsp;ramentum resembling that of the 'W'^yoming cycads in the large number of cells seen in transverse section. The bract ramental hairs arenbsp;apparently thinner than those belonging to the leaf bases. The peduncles are subequilateral-triangular in transverse section, the bracts thenbsp;same, or in part of crescentic transverse section, with the horns ofnbsp;the crescent gracefully rounded. There are slight differences in thenbsp;arrangement of the xylem and phloem of the peduncle, as comparednbsp;with the Black Hills cycads, Cycadeoidea Paynei and 0. Wielandi,nbsp;which 1 presume compare most nearly with this form in general outline of the trunk and appearance of the fruiting axes. There is anbsp;strong suggestion that the fruits when mature must have hung wellnbsp;out from the trunk, verjr much as a Zamia angustifolia cone.

Cycadeoidea nigra is certainly well named. The sections as thin as paper are still black. It is, moreover, a very distinct species�a verynbsp;interesting cycad. 1 am sori'y that I could not catch so much as anbsp;pai'enchymatous cushion.

PI. LXVHI shows the best side of the trunk and brings out the leaf scars with their arrangements and the reproductive organs very clearly.nbsp;PL LXIX represents the vertical fracture and shows all that can be seennbsp;of the internal structure. The indistinctness at the summit is due tonbsp;the oblique direction of the fracture at that point, sloping back fromnbsp;the camera so as to become out of focus.

A considerable number of fossil cycadean trunks have been obtained from the Jurassic of Wyoming. The locality is in what are called the

The history of the discovery of these fossil trunks dates back only to 1898. The first intimation that I had of it was contained in a telegram from Prof. O. C. Marsh, dated July 15,1898, as follows: � Havenbsp;two small cycads, apparently new, from the new Mtyoming locality;nbsp;will send them by express if }mu can use them in your report.� Thenbsp;�report� alluded to is the description of the Black Hills cycads in thenbsp;Nineteenth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey (Pt. H, pp.nbsp;594-641, pis. Ixi-clvii), which had gone to the printer before the telegram was received. As the new locality is not in the Black Hills, itnbsp;would not have been appropriate to include the ITyoining cycads innbsp;that paper, and I so informed Professor Marsh.

Professor Marsh prompt!}quot; made public all the information he had on this subject in the �Postscript� to his paper on �The Jurassicnbsp;Formation on the Atlantic Coast�Supplement,� which he had readnbsp;before the National Academy of Sciences on November 18,1897. Thisnbsp;�Supplement� with the �Postscript� appeared in the American Journal of Science for August, 1898 (4th ser., Vol. VI, pp. 105-115), andnbsp;also in Science of August 5, 1898 (N. S., Vol. VHI, pp. 14.5-154).

The next I�eminder I had of the existence of these vegetable fossils was through Dr. F. H. Knowlton, who had received a letter fromnbsp;Prof. 'Wilbur C. Knight, State geologist of Wtyomipg, dated September 3, 1898, in which he said: �Recently ni}- assistant made a verynbsp;rich find of Jurassic cycads. Would }quot;ou care to describe the species,nbsp;or possibly several species ? I have some fine ones. One on my desknbsp;is 8 by 6 by 12 inches or larger.�

Dr. Knowlton showed me this letter, and, knowing that it referred to the same locality as that from which Professor Marsh had obtainednbsp;his specimens, I immediately wrote to Professor Knight and offerednbsp;to describe the specimens if he could find a way of placing them in mynbsp;hands. As a result a negotiation was entered into with the authoritiesnbsp;of the United States National Museum as to conditions on which thenbsp;material would be received, and it was not until the 16th of March,nbsp;1899, that the collection finally arrived.

In a letter from Professor Knight, dated October 18, 1898, in answer to questions I had asked him relative to the age of the beds, he says:

There is no question as to the horizon of the find; it is in the Jurassic fresh-water beds, and near the bottom. In the locality where this bed has been opened there isnbsp;a typical Jurassic exposure, and the fresh-water and marine beds can be sectioned tonbsp;a foot. I have not visited the cycad beds yet, but I am well acquainted with thenbsp;locality and have made rough sections many times. In my opinion it is a very excellent find and is well worth a careful study. I am at the present time makinga specialnbsp;study of the Jurassic of Wyoming, contemplating a monograph on the subject as soonnbsp;as it is possible to complete the work. If you wish, I can go to the field and give younbsp;an absolute section of the bed.

In another letter dated November 1, 1898, he makes the following more specific statement:

Your Black Hills section reminds me of the Big Horn Basin country where I found beds that I could not place in the Dakota. In no instance in the section given havenbsp;I detected any nonconformability, although I anticipate that such exists betweennbsp;the Jurassic and Dakota.

I spent the latter part of November of that year at the Yale Museum describing the new material that Professor Marsh had acquired sincenbsp;my visit in June. This included the two specimens I�eceived from Mr.nbsp;Kecd from the Jurassic of Wyoming, and I took as full notes on themnbsp;as possible. It was apparent at a glance that they had nothing to donbsp;with the Black Hills cycads, and that they were very different fromnbsp;anything that I had seen either in this country or in Europe. Innbsp;some respects they resembled the specimens from the Purbeck bedsnbsp;of the Isle of Portland, especially the small ones that I saw there innbsp;1894, and of which I obtained 20 specimens for the United Statesnbsp;National Museum. This, however, had less to do with their botanicalnbsp;than with their mineralogical character, their light color, soft, ashynbsp;constitution, and especially their obviously partially calcareous nature.nbsp;In writing to Professor Knight after my return, in a letter datednbsp;December 5, 1898, I said:

I was in New Haven all last week working up a collection of cycads that Professor Marsh has obtained since I was there in June. Among them were the two from Wyoming that Mr. Reed sent him. I took full notes on them. One is immature andnbsp;the other a fragment, and neither ought to form the basis for a species, although theynbsp;seem to be specifically different from each other and also from any other cycadsnbsp;known to me. If there is any prospect of my handling your full collection, or anynbsp;considerable part of it, I shall delay describing these until I have seen morenbsp;material.

While I was in New Haven in November, 1898, Professor Marsh requested mo to name one of the Wyoming species, should there provenbsp;to be a new one, for Mr. Reed, the original collector. I have compliednbsp;with this reqilest in the present paper. I should have naturally donenbsp;so, in conformity with the general practice of naming species after thenbsp;collector, but in the present case, since Professor Marsh so stronglynbsp;requested it, it becomes an obligation, as it certainl}^ is a pleasure.

Although from Professor Knight�s representation, and from all accounts, there was little doubt as to the Jurassic age of the cycad bednbsp;in the Freezeout Hills of Wyoming, still my desire to visit the spotnbsp;and obtain a clear first-hand idea of it and of its relations to other

deposits was very great, and I gladly availed myself of Professor Knig-ht�s generous offer to go with me to the localitjv An arrangement was made to meet him at Laramie September 1, 1899, for thisnbsp;purpose. I was there at the appointed time, and a small party startednbsp;on the 2d and reached the Freezeout Hills on the 3d.

The Freezeout Hills occupy an area some 10 miles square in about latitude 42� 7' N., longitude 106� 15' W. from Greenwich, and lienbsp;principally in T. 25 N., R. 79 W. Its topographic position isnbsp;between the Big and Little Medicine rivers, which unite to form Eocknbsp;Creek 10 miles due south of its central portion; but Muddy Creek, anbsp;branch of the Little Medicine, bounds the area on the north and eastnbsp;sides, while tributaries of the Big Medicine have their origin in itsnbsp;western portion. The highest of the hills is called Freezeout Mountain,nbsp;the name being derived from a somewhat vague tradition that in earlynbsp;times an entire party of men were frozen to death in its immediatenbsp;vicinity. The general uplift, which nowhere exceeds 8,000 feet,nbsp;extends in a southeasterly direction to Medicine Bow and beyond. Itnbsp;is in one of the spurs of it, 7 miles east of the last-named place,nbsp;and opposite the station called Auroi'a, on the Union Pacific Railroad,nbsp;in the valley of Rock Creek, that the famous Como Bluff is located, innbsp;M'hich dinosaurian remains were early found, and which furnished thenbsp;well-known section so often published b.y Professor Marsh.

In traveling north from Medicine Bow, areas of Fort Benton and Dakota are passed over before reaching the Little Medicine, 5 milesnbsp;from that place, in the valley of which the Jurassic is exposed, underlain by the Red Beds, both of which look very familiar to one acquaintednbsp;with the Black Hills. The beds dip rapidly to the south, and there isnbsp;an anticline to the north of the Little Medicine, the summit of whichnbsp;consists of a curious white sandy limestone, probably Pei'mian in age,nbsp;and comparable to some of the Permian beds of Kansas. Beyond thisnbsp;there is a wide plain, over which, at favorable places, the Jurassic andnbsp;the Red Beds again successively make their appearance. Crossing-this plain, a distance of some 12 miles, the southeastern border ofnbsp;the Freezeout Hills is reached. They are somewhat isolated and slopenbsp;gradually to the east, while the west end of the spurs presents a raggednbsp;escarpment. The wagon road passes around them on the cast, whilenbsp;at their western bases there is a somewhat narrow valley. As thenbsp;geology can be much better studied on the west side, several membersnbsp;of the party, including Professor Knight and myself, took throughnbsp;this valley on foot from Trabing Brothers� ranch to the cabin whichnbsp;had been erected by the University of Wyoming on the noi�th side ofnbsp;the hills, a distance of 6 miles. We thus passed along the foot ofnbsp;Freezeout Mountain, which rises 600 feet above the plain. The stratanbsp;were seen dipping to the southeast, exposing at the base of the cliffsnbsp;heavy beds of massivm light-colored limestone, which weathers red andnbsp;20 GEOL, PT 2--25

is supposed to belong- to the Trias. The marine Jurassic rests upon this, and over it is the fresh-water Jurassic, which everywherenbsp;throughout this region holds saurian bones. The whole is capped bynbsp;a formation which is called Dakota, but which in all es.sential respectsnbsp;resembles the Lower Cretaceous of the Black Hills. In some places,nbsp;however, it has a different appearance and can be compared withnbsp;phases of the Kansas deposits underlying the Dakota' especially asnbsp;exposed at the head of the Medicine Lodge River. �

The cycad localiH is in the northern portion of the hills and only half a mile from the cabin, and is located on section 13 of the townshipnbsp;and range above mentioned. It occupies a rectangular area some 300nbsp;yards long east and west and 50 yards wide north and south, a littlenbsp;below and on the north side of the summit of a low rounded ridge in anbsp;sort of gap near the west end of the most northerly spur of the Freeze-out Hills. This spur is much higher to the east of this gap, with anbsp;western scarp like the rest, and is capped by Cretaceous rocks, as shownnbsp;in the section opposite. It lies near the middle of the fresh-waternbsp;Jurassic. The cycadean trunks are buried in a loose and soft reddish-gray calcareous sand, easy of excavation, and a considerable numbernbsp;were dug out with a mattock. There are doubtless many more beneathnbsp;the surface, and Professor Knight proposed to have the entire areanbsp;turned over with a subsoil plow in the hope of bringing them to light.

This loose calcareous sand is so different from the material on the ridge above and below the cycad bed as to make it apparent that it consisted of a disintegrated stratum which was uidike those of the underlying and overljdng beds, and I set about tracing it to the east, wherenbsp;the northern slope of the spur is much steeper and the strata are betternbsp;exposed. I had no difficulty in doing this, and soon found the bed wellnbsp;exposed and continuing uniformly through the hill on its northern flank.nbsp;It forms a ledge much of the way, and consists of a coarse, reddish-brown, cross-bedded sandstone with streaks of small, white, calcareousnbsp;flecks, or small pellets. In some places these pellets are larger and givenbsp;the rock somewhat the appearance of a conglomerate. There are alsonbsp;black carbonaceous streaks, containing compressed bits of lignitizednbsp;wood. Silicified wood is very abundant in the cycad bed proper and isnbsp;occasionally seen in the ledges.

After familiarizing myself with this important stratum I crossed over to the low hills north of the valley in which the cabin is located, andnbsp;found it occupying the summit of some of them. It is much thickernbsp;there and forms crags. No cycads were found there, but large trunksnbsp;of silicified wood lie embedded in the rock, and the gulches below arenbsp;strewn with them and with blocks of the wood that have weathered out.

iSee Science, new series, Vol. VI, Nov. 26,1897, p. 815, and the paper of Mr. C. N. Gould On-a series of transition beds from the Comanche to the Dakota Cretaceous in southwest Kansas: Am. Jour. Sci.,nbsp;March, 1898. 4th series, Vol. V, pp. 169-175.

A somewhat careful section was made east of the cycad localit}^ at the point where the spur attains it greatest elevation, which is wherenbsp;it suddenly breaks away and exposes its western end down to the levelnbsp;of the low ridge holding the cycadean trunks. The following is thenbsp;section;

Marine Jurassic from Red Beds exposed in bottom of valley to base of fresh-water

The fresh-water Jurassic consists of tine soft sandstones, white, reddish, or yellowish, and olive-gray calcareous shales, at nearly all parts of which occur lenses or extensive beds of dark marls holding sauriannbsp;bones and other vertebrate remains in great numbers. Some of thesenbsp;occupy a position above and others below that of the cycad-bearingnbsp;stratum, and a number of bones were found in the cycad bed itself atnbsp;its eastern end. These, however, may not have been in place, as nonbsp;marls occur at this point.

I may add that there was no part of the section that is not practically paralleled in the Black Hills, and it does not differ more in general geological character or in the thickness of the several members from those I made in several parts of the Black Hills than thosenbsp;sections differ from one another.^ The conclusion seems inevitablenbsp;that practically the same general geological conditions obtain over anbsp;vast region of the Rockj^ Mountain uplift. Not less important to thenbsp;paleontologist is the other general inference which so naturally flowsnbsp;from all the facts observed, that the life, both animal and vegetable,nbsp;of this enormous period, extending, apparently unbroken, from thenbsp;Permian to the Tertiary, has left its record, and will ultimately benbsp;known with a high degree of certainty. The marked difference thatnbsp;we shall presently see to exist between the cycadean forms of thenbsp;Jurassic and those of the Lower Cretaceous fully attests the rapidnbsp;change that took place during the comparatively short inteiu'al thatnbsp;separates them.

The material collected on this expedition was shipped to the National Museum by Mr. Charles Schuchert, who was a member of the party.nbsp;Several other trunks were collected b}^ Mr. Charles Gilmore beforenbsp;my arrival, and are at the University of Wyoming awaiting shipment.nbsp;These I have not seen, nor ha\m I had time since my return to study

the others. The following account will therefore be confined to the original collections of Mr. W. H. Reed, sent me Professor Knight,nbsp;and the two specimens which Mr. Reed sent to Professor Marsh. Thenbsp;former of these collections consists of 83 specimens of cycads andnbsp;3 specimens of silicified wood. The specimens of cycads bear thenbsp;numbers 500.1 to 500.83, and those of the wood the numbers 500.85 tonbsp;500.87, of the Museum of the School of Mines of the University of M^yo-ming, at Laramie, Wyoming. They are for the most part fragments,nbsp;but there are a few entire trunks. The three largest. Nos. 500.1,nbsp;500.2, and 500.65, though all present, are each broken in two piecesnbsp;which fit together perfectly. In a number of cases complementarynbsp;parts had been detected and, unfortunately for their convenient stud}^,nbsp;glued together. In others such complements had been recognized andnbsp;given the same number. It was obvious, however, that many fragmentsnbsp;that belong together had not been identified, and much time was spent innbsp;finding and joining these counterparts. This stud}^ ultimately resultednbsp;in finding about 25 such cases. In addition to these there are a number which, although they do not actually fit together, neverthelessnbsp;evidently belong to the same trunk, the structure being continuousnbsp;and explicable on the assumption of the loss of intermediate portions.nbsp;Putting these two classes together, the number of independent trunksnbsp;and fragments is reduced to 61. In several cases more than 2 fragments belong together; for example, in three cases there are 3 and innbsp;two cases there are 5 separately numbered pieces of the same trunk.

A large proportion of the specimens were covered on the side on which they lay in the field b}^ an incrustation of lime. This completely obscured the structure, and it was necessary to remove it.nbsp;This was the case with many of the Black Hills cycads, but it presented no serious difficulty beyond the labor and expense of placingnbsp;the trunks in a vat of hjMrochloric acid and leaving them there untilnbsp;the lime was removed, the pure silica of those trunks being whollynbsp;unaffected by the process. But, as already remarked, the Jurassicnbsp;ti'unks, although mainly silicified, contain calcareous matter, and thenbsp;acid unavoidablj^ etches the surface somewhat. If this had been all itnbsp;would have been a comparatively small matter. The worst difficultynbsp;arises from the fact that the oxidation of the specimens turns thenbsp;parts affected b}^ the acid black or dull brown, and thereby more ornbsp;less obscures the markings of the surface, on which the differentnbsp;organs normally have a different shade of color, which brings themnbsp;out distinctly. After the acid bath, although the lime is removed andnbsp;the surface little eaten or injured, all the organs have this uniformnbsp;black or brown color. It is, however, fortunate that, while this interferes seriously with an ordinary macroscopic examination, the application of a lens removes the obscurity to a consideraVile degree, and

in photographing the specimens it is observed that the dark surfaces come out almost as clearly as the light or variegated ones.

Besides the lime incrustations on the under surface, there was usualljquot; a coating of lichens on the surface which lay uppermost, andnbsp;this, �'here it existed, was quite as fatal to an examination of the partsnbsp;thus concealed as the coating of lime. This, though somewhat morenbsp;difficult to remove, jdelds to a strong alkali, which has no effect uponnbsp;the underlying structures.

The cleaning of the specimens by both the processes emplojmd was undertaken as soon as possible after the collection had been unpacked,nbsp;and I commenced the systematic study of the trunks almost at once,nbsp;thoroughly noting and recording the characters and peculiarities ofnbsp;every specimen and of all parts of each, and by the end of May, 1899,nbsp;I had completed this part of the work. I have compiled tables of thenbsp;characters, and the subdivision into specific groups has been basednbsp;mainh- upon such characters. Notwithstanding considerable samenessnbsp;among these characters, it is possible to classify them, and there seemsnbsp;no doubt that, could their foliage and reproductive organs be known,nbsp;the C3u'adean flora of the Jurassic of Wyoming would be representednbsp;by a considerable number of species if not of genera, although itnbsp;would be rash to assert that the lines would be drawn in all cases wherenbsp;we must draw them here.

The most marked feature that struck me on first casual inspection of these trunks, aside fi�om their relatively small size, light color, andnbsp;soft calcareous structure, was the frequency of a sort of smooth, to thenbsp;naked eye structureless, dull, uniform covering that invests their outernbsp;surfaces and cuts off' the view of the normal organs of the armor. Anbsp;closer examination revealed the fact that this was not an occasional condition, but the normal state of these C3quot;cads, and that the cases in whichnbsp;this outer coating is wanting- represent the abnormal state. It furthernbsp;became clear that there really are no cases in which it is naturallynbsp;absent, and that its absence is alwa3^s due to some external influencenbsp;acting upon the surface which has removed it. There is an abundancenbsp;of proof of this, and most of the specimens show parts over which thenbsp;external coating still adheres and other parts where it is absent. Thenbsp;latter usualh' reveal the nature of the agency that has removed thenbsp;coating�whether a sudden and violent concussion, gradual erosion, ornbsp;a process of weathering. The contact of the outer layer with the surface of the armor proper is alwa3rs marked b3^ a clear plane of separation, and usuall}- by an open structure or even a partiall3- void space.nbsp;This becomes a natural plane of cleavage, and almost an3- influence willnbsp;cause the outer coating to scale off like the outer bark of a tree.

In the specimens of the Yale Museum this outer coating had almost entireh- disappeared, though not absoluteh', so that the phenomenon

did not specially sti�ike me, and I noted only that the surfaces were obscure in places. Through the kindness of Dr. C. E. Beecher thesenbsp;specimens were sent to me for further examination and comparisonnbsp;with those of the large collection from Professor Knight. Some ofnbsp;the important results of this comparison will be noted later on, butnbsp;it is sufficient to state here that they form no exception or anomaly,nbsp;but are simply part and parcel of the general lot.

Generic characters, with the exception of Bennettites, which is identical with Cycadeoidea except in the accident that seeds have beennbsp;discovered in the spadices, have generally been based on the shape ofnbsp;the trunk and on the character of the armor, i. e., of the remains ofnbsp;the foliar oi-gans still adhering to the trunk in the fossil state. Thenbsp;former of these characters has proved of less constancy, and, in casesnbsp;where the latter class of characters is distinctive, authors have notnbsp;hesitated to ignore variations in the former, as, e. g;, Cycadeoideanbsp;giyantea of Seward, a tall, cylindrical trunk, wholly different in formnbsp;from other species of that genus. I was obliged to do the same withnbsp;C. excelsco and C. Jenneyana.

The second class of characters is relatively constant and diagnostic, and to show the differences in the different genera ^ I will reproducenbsp;the descriptions of different authors of these generic characters, translating where necessary;

Bucklandia: scarred-areolate by the scars of the spadices, scales, and petioles (Car-ruthers).

Yatesia: covered by the scales and persistent bases of the petioles (Carruthers). 'Williamsonia: scarred-areolate by the markings of the deciduous petioles (Carruthers) .

Bennettites: covered with the persistent bases of the petioles (Carruthers). Mantellia: same as Bennettites (Carruthers. This was Brongniart�s name of Cycadeoidea, which Carruthers adopted).

Raumeria: densely covered or scarred by the persistent bases of the petioles and stipule-shaped, connate scales (Carruthers).

Fittonia: covered by the scales and persistent, large, geniculate bases of the petioles (Carruthers).

Crossozamia: covered by the short, subimbricate bases of the petioles (Carruthers). Clathraria: marked by transverse rhombic or irregularly pentagonal and hexagonalnbsp;scars of leaves truncated above the base (Schimper).

Cycadeoidea: enveloped by the basilar remains of the leaves, rhomboidal in cross section (Schimper).^

Bolbopodium:. completely enveloped by the disjointed rhombic leaf bases of different lengths (Saporta).

Cylindropodium: leaf bases short, densely crowded, with rhombic, convex scars (Saporta).

Clathropodium: leaf bases long-rhombic or elliptical in cross section (Saporta).

� Many of the generic names mentioned here are of course synonyms, but have been described as genera.

The peculiar outer coating� or second, armor of the Jurassic cycads of Wyoming- obviously constitutes a good generic character. At the samenbsp;time, as is seen by the above descriptions, it is wholW different fromnbsp;that of any other genus of cjmadean trunks, and it is therefoi�e tieces-sary to regard it as a new genus, altogether different in its most essential generic characters from any other. From the generally small sizenbsp;of these trunks, especially when compared with the giant forms of thenbsp;Black Hills, I have concluded to call this new genus Cycadella.

Although a macroscopic examination is sufficient to show this generic distinction, still it does not immediatelj^ indicate the true nature of thisnbsp;supplementary envelop. I was at first disposed to think that it consisted of matted leaves. I observed that the leaf bases were alwaysnbsp;present, filling the scars, and sometimes projecting somewhat abovenbsp;the general surface, and I did not know but that expanded portions ofnbsp;them might have also persisted and been rolled and packed againstnbsp;the trunks in the process of entombment in a manner to produce thenbsp;observed effect. But a strong glass failed to bring out the differencenbsp;on the surface that would be expected if such had been the case: stri-ations, folds, leaf margins, etc. Moreover, the fractured margins oftennbsp;showed the darker leaf bases coming out to the surface of the truenbsp;armor but never continuing across the line of separation and minglingnbsp;with the tissue of the outer layer, which is sometimes more than anbsp;centimeter in thickness.

Since, aside from the reproductive organs, less abundant than in the Cretaceous cycads, the armor consists of nothing else than the leafnbsp;bases and the ramentum that is attached to them and constitutes thenbsp;walls, this last must have furnished the covering which foi-ms thenbsp;outer coat. It has been observed that these fine scales or hairs arenbsp;always the most certain to be preserved, and whatever the degree ofnbsp;imperfection in the state of preservation in other respects, the wallsnbsp;are usually intact. This accounts for the large number of trunks thatnbsp;consist of these walls penetrated to a great depth by the rhombic ornbsp;triangular cavities, looking like petrified honeycomb or sponges.nbsp;This is a most fortunate circumstance, since otherwise we should innbsp;such cases have nothing but the woody cylinder of the trunk, andnbsp;would be entirely incapable of determining the true nature of thenbsp;objects.

This special susceptibility to petrification on the part of the ramen-tuni explains the presence of the external covering of the Wyoming Jurassic cycads, since it seems actually to consist of a matted mass ofnbsp;these ramentaceous hairs, which in some way developed so luxuriantlynbsp;upon the sides of the petioles as to push out beyond the surface andnbsp;roll over the spaces formerly occupied by the leaves and fruits. Itnbsp;seems necessary to assume that this occurred long after the fall of the

leaves, and, indeed, this latter doubtless took place much as it does in living cycads, the leaves always forming a crown to the trunks andnbsp;falling away as the trunk elongates, leaving only their persistent basesnbsp;to form a false bark. These are not wholly dead, but manifest vegetative activity, and doubtless have some physiological function. Thenbsp;development of copious ramentaceous hairs would form a protectionnbsp;to the trunk both from cold and from violence.

Something analogous to this may be seen in living cycads and in tree ferns; also in some palms, and a similar function is sometimesnbsp;performed in other ways, as by the coat of wax on the wax palms.nbsp;At any rate, we are confronted with the fact that Cycadella developednbsp;an exuberant growth of tine scales or hairs from the bases of its oldnbsp;petioles below the apex, which formed a woolly or mossy covering ofnbsp;considerable thickness, sufficient when tightly appressed to the trunknbsp;and petrified there to form a layer 5 to 15 mm. thick all over the fossilnbsp;trunks.

As already remarked, there is usually a clean line of separation between the armor proper and this outer covering, but if the latternbsp;consists of ramentum there must be points at which it crossed thisnbsp;boundary and reappeared in the superficial layer. Such points are notnbsp;easy to find in the collection, but the fractured surfaces of a few specimens reveal the process of transition in a more or less imperfect way.nbsp;Such specimens were carefully searched out and the most promisingnbsp;cases were sectioned and the surfaces polished. Slides were also made,nbsp;and the whole process is as fully illustrated as the nature of thenbsp;material will permit.

The following is the description of the new genus Cycadella and the species distinguished in the collections examined;

Trunks relatively small, bulbous, subspheroidal, or subconical, variously compressed, incased in a layer 5 to 15 mm. thick of dense tissue, consisting of the chaffy ramentum exuberantly developed from thenbsp;leaf bases and extruded from the armor, massed and matted in thenbsp;fossil state so as to form a thick outer covering to the trunk; leafnbsp;bases alwaj^s filling the scars, occasionally caught in the meshes of thenbsp;outer coating, but normally truncated below, and constituting, withnbsp;the I'amentum walls, a dense armor 1 to 5 cm. thick; otherwise as innbsp;Cycadeoidea.

PI. LXX merel}^ illustrates the nature of the ramentaceous chaff and the great length that it attains, but it would be obvioushquot; impossible

1 The systeniatie position of Cvcadella is the same as that of Cycadeoidea (see supra, p. 302).

to show the full length with a power of 90 diameters. The manner in which the chaffy hairs protrude from the armor and pour over thenbsp;surface of the ti-unk, upon which they lie in mats of wavy lines, isnbsp;shown on Pis. XCIV and XCV, illustrating C. Knowltoniana. Thenbsp;phenomena will be more fully described under that species.

I am indebted to Dr. F. H. Knowlton for the drawing of PI. LXX, made from slides of the two species, C. Knowltoniana (Figs. 1-3) andnbsp;C. ramentosa (Figs. 1, 5), under the compound microscope. Fornbsp;further details see description of that plate.

Trunks small (8 to 12 cm. high, 6 to 16 cm. in diameter), subspheroidal or subconical, unbranched, usually more or less laterally compressed,nbsp;the axis oblique; rock substance rather soft, light colored, of low specific gravity; organs of the armor ascending; leaf scars arranged innbsp;rows around the trunk nearR at right angles to the axis, subrhombic,nbsp;15 to 20 mm. wide, 6 to 10 mm. high; leaf bases porous; walls 1 to 3nbsp;mm. thick, hard and fine-grained, often flinty, usually white and somewhat striate; reproductive organs very obscure; armor 1 to 3 cm.nbsp;thick, separated from the axis by a definite line.; wood 2 to 3 cm.nbsp;thick; cortical parenchyma 1 to 2 cm. thick; fibrous zone divided intonbsp;two or three rings of fine, more or less distinctD radiate structure;nbsp;medulla 2 to 4 cm. in diameter, nearly circular, consisting of finegrained homogeneous tissue.

To this species are referred five of the specimens. One of these, which is taken as the type, is the more complete of two originally sentnbsp;to Professor Marsh b}^ Mr. W. H. Reed, for whom the species is named.nbsp;It is No. 127 of the Yale collection. The other specimens are Nos.nbsp;500.6, 500.10,500.19, and 500.29 of the Museum of the State Universitynbsp;of Wyoming. The Yale specimen is lai-ger than any of the others,nbsp;weighing 2.04 kilograms, while No. 500.10 is the smallest trunk innbsp;either collection and weighs 01113^ 0.37 kilogram. No. 600.6 weighsnbsp;1.48, No. 500.19, 1.56, and No. 600.29, 1.67 kilograms.

PL LXXI represents the best side of the Yale specimen, with the eccentric medulla projecting. PI. LXXII shows the side opposite this,nbsp;which is considerabl3^ obscured b;:quot; remains of the outer coat. PI.nbsp;LXXIII, Fig. 1, shows a side view of No. 500.29, of the Museum of thenbsp;Universit}^ of Wyoming, and Fig. 2 is a view of the base. PL LXXIVnbsp;gives two views of opposite sides of No. 500.6, the base being faintl3�nbsp;visible in both. PL LXXV, Fig. 1, represents the best-preservednbsp;side of No.. 500.19, and Fig. 2 the base. PL LXXVI shows the twonbsp;opposite broadest sides of the small No. 500.10.

1900. Cycaddla Beecheriana Ward: Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., Vol. I, p. 265, pi. xvi.

Tnitik cidindrical, contracted at base and summit, somewhat laterally compressed, unbranched, 35 cm. high, 18 by 22 cm. in diameter; rock substance soft, generally light colored with darker .stripes andnbsp;spots strong'!}^ contrasting, of low specific gravity; organs of the armornbsp;horizontal; phyllotaxy concealed bj'^ the outer coating of ramentum ;nbsp;leaf scars subrhombic or somewhat elliptical, 15 to 20 mm. wide, 5 tonbsp;10 mm. high; leaf bases dark colored, punctate; walls about 5 mm.nbsp;thick, firm, white, sometimes with a median line ; reproductive organsnbsp;well developed, somewhat raised above the general surface, ellipticalnbsp;in cross section, 2 by 3 cm. in diameter, surrounded by subrhombicnbsp;bract scars in several rows, the central portion heterogeneous andnbsp;more or less crystallized; armor 3 to 4 cm. thick, joining the axis bynbsp;an irregular line ; wood 3 to 4 cm. thick; cortical parenchyma 1 to 2nbsp;cm. thick; fibrous zone 2 cm. thick, not differentiated into rings, firmnbsp;and dark colored; medulla mostly wanting in the only specimennbsp;known, the preserved remains flinty and white.

Of this species there has thus far been found less than half of one trunk. The upper two-thirds of this consists of the frag'inent No.nbsp;128 of the Yale collection. When I studied this fragment in November, 1898, it was all in one piece, but subsequently broke into twonbsp;nearly equal pieces by an oblique transverse fracture, and a small lumpnbsp;came out of the lower one of these pieces. While studying the largernbsp;collection at Washington in June, 1899,1 felt the need of again seeingnbsp;the two Yale specimens in order to correlate them with the rest, andnbsp;at my request Dr. C. E. Beecher kindly sent them to me for the purpose. As soon as I saw this fragment I at once recognized its resemblance to a smaller fragment of the Knight collection. No. 500.54,nbsp;which I had been unable to class with any of the rest. On confronting them it was found that No. 500.54 of the Wyoming collection fittednbsp;perfectly on the lower end of No. 128 of the Yale collection, thusnbsp;nearly completing it in that direction, but still leaving a small part ofnbsp;the base unrepresented. Thus restored the specimen represents nearlynbsp;half of the original trunk, which was split down quite evenl}quot; fromnbsp;summit to base on a longitudinal plane a trifle on one side of the center.nbsp;On the fractured surface thus presented the internal characters arenbsp;exposed with great clearness.

As a partial recognition of the interest taken bi^ Dr. Beecher in the subject of cycads in general and in the Wyoming specimens in particular, I dedicate this species to him.

PI. LXXVII represents the inner fi�actured surface of the specimen as restored, the lines separating all four of the pieces being distinctlynbsp;visible. PI. LXXVIII shows the outer surface of the same.

1900. Cijmddln v'yomingengiK Ward; Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., VoL I, p. 266, pi. xvii.

Trunks relatively large (25 to 30 cm. high, 15 to 25 cm. in diameter), short-conical or slightly contracted at the base, more or less laterallynbsp;compressed, unbranched or with a few projecting secondary axes; rocknbsp;substance hard and fine-grained, generally light colored but with varying shades, of medium specific gravity; organs of the armor slightlynbsp;ascending; rows of scars from left to right making an angle with thenbsp;axis of 70� to 80�, those from right to left of 46�; leaf scars sub-rhombic, 15 to 20mm. wide, 8 to 12mm. high; leaf bases relativelynbsp;dark, affected with black or sometimes white tubular punctations;nbsp;walls 2 to 4 mm. thick, light colored and striate but without any propernbsp;commi.ssure; reproductive organs few but often well developed, sometimes projecting or passing through the outer coating, elliptical innbsp;cross-section, 2 by 3 cm. in diameter, surrounded by mostly obscure,nbsp;rather large involucral bract scars of variable shape, the central portion solid but heterogeneous in structure; armor 3 to 6 cm. thick, joinednbsp;to the axis by a definite but usually irregular, sometimes scalloped,nbsp;line; wood 3 to 4cm, thick; cortical parenchyma 10 to 15 mm. thick;nbsp;fibrous zone 1 to 2 cm. thick, usually consisting of two rings, one ornbsp;both radiate in structure, the medullary rays often distinct; medullanbsp;5 to 10 cm. in diameter, the cross-section elliptical in the compressednbsp;specimens, of a nearl}^ homogeneous fine-grained structure.

This species includes some of the handsomest specimens in the collection, having about a medium .size, and therefore being fairl3' representative of the Jurassic cycads. Nos. 500.3, 500.14, and 500.15 are nearly perfect trunks. The rest are fragments. Nos. 500.7 and 600.20 arenbsp;somewhat thin segments bounded by transverse fractures, and almostnbsp;certainh^ belong to the same trunk at different elevations. No. 500.26nbsp;may be a lower segment of the same trunk, but if so it must have beennbsp;contracted at the base, as is the case with No. 500.3. Nos. 500.8 andnbsp;500.67 fit each other, and the former, which was shattered whennbsp;received, has come in three pieces. It represents a section between twonbsp;oblique but chieflj^ vertical fractures. No. 500.52, a thick, somewhatnbsp;cubical piece, almost certainK belongs to No. 500.8, as s�own bv thenbsp;identical structure of its principal fracture.

Pis. LXXIX and LXXX illustrate two of the sides and the base of No. 500.3. Pis. LXXXI to LXXXIII do the same for No. 500. Id. Innbsp;PI. LXXXI, which is a side idew of No. 500.14, the distinction betweennbsp;the parts covered with the ramentaceous cortex on the right and thosenbsp;from which this has peeled off on the left, with the exposed edge of thisnbsp;layer, is clearh� brought out. In PI. LXXXII the compressed leafynbsp;summit of the trunk, broken down on one side, is made clear, and thenbsp;circular area near the top represents the probable eccentric terminalnbsp;bud or end of the main axis with small scars. Pis. LXXXIV andnbsp;LXXXV show the broadest side and the base of No. 500.15. Pis.nbsp;LXXXVI to XC illustrate the segmentary fragments Nos. 500.7, 500.8,nbsp;500.20, 500.26, and 500.52, several of which probably represent thenbsp;same trunk.

1900. Cycndella Knowltonuma Ward: Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., Vol. I, p. 267, pis. xviii-xx.

Trunks medium size (25 cm. in diameter), cylindrical, bearing a few small secondary axes; rock soft, light colored without, dark and variegated within; organs of the armor horizontal; leaf scars subrhombic,nbsp;8 to 12 mm. wide, 4 to 6 mm. high; leaf bases relatively dark, punctate with minute white-walled tubes; walls thick, sometimes 5 mm.,nbsp;soft, white on their outer edges, brown within as shown on the fractures, contrasting strongly with the nearly black leaf bases, thenbsp;ramentaceous hairs very distinct, showing their mode of origin in thenbsp;petioles and their passage from the armor into the outer coating whichnbsp;they form, to a thickness in places of nearly 2 cm.; reproductivenbsp;organs few Imt distinct, usually raised, 16 by 25 mm. in diameter, surrounded by two or more rows of narrow involucral bract scars, thenbsp;bracts distinctly traceable in longitudinal section to their origin in thenbsp;receptacle, from which also proceed the essential organs in an advancednbsp;stage of decay and mineralization; armor 3 to 4 cm. thick, joined tonbsp;the axis by a very irregular but somewhat detinite line, the petiolesnbsp;emerging from different depths as projections of the wood substance;

wood 2 to 3 cm. thick, veiy imperfectly differentiated into two zones, the inner wall, exposed in one specimen, showing large scars of thenbsp;medullary rays, consisting of elongated alternating depressions, 10 tonbsp;15 mm. long, 5 to 8 mm. wide, each with a raised point or cushionnbsp;above the middle; medulla 1 cm. in diameter, hard, ffne-grained, andnbsp;homogeneous.

This species consists of Nos. 500.62 and 500.76, which seem to belong to the same trunk, but are not exactly contiguous. They probablynbsp;belong end to end. No. 500.62 being the upper segment and reachingnbsp;nearly to the apex of the trunk, while No. 500.76 falls considerablynbsp;short of reaching the base. The trunk probablj^ had a height of aboutnbsp;20 cm. No. 500.62 has lost the medulla, thus exposing the inner wallnbsp;of the wood}' axis as described. Both specimens are nearly coverednbsp;without by the coating of ramentum, and the transverse fractures revealnbsp;its nature better than in any other specimens in the collection. One ofnbsp;these surfaces (the upper fracture of No. 500.76) has been cut acrossnbsp;and polished, and microscopic slides prepared from the region whichnbsp;most clearly shows the transition of the ramentum to the outer investiture (see PI. LXX, Figs. 1-3). This polished surface was photographed natural size and also enlai�ged four times linear, and the mostnbsp;instructive portions of the large view have been selected to illustratenbsp;the behavior of the ramentaceous chaff in forming the external la}^!�.

On account of the great interest taken by Dr. F. H. Knowlton in the question of the true nature of this peculiar generic character, thenbsp;material assistance he has rendered me in preparing and examiningnbsp;microscopic slides illustrating it, and the fact that the most successfulnbsp;of these investigations have been made on specimens of this species, Inbsp;have thought it a proper recognition of his services that the speciesnbsp;should bear his name.

The weight of No. 500.62 is 1.22 kilograms, and that of No. 500.76 (before cutting) 1.39 kilograms.

PI. XCI shows the outer surface of No. 500.62, which is completely encg,sed in the ramentaceous lajmr, so that none of the scars are visible.nbsp;Fig. 2 represents the inner wall of the woody zone with the scars ofnbsp;the medullary rays. PI. XCII, Fig. 1, presents the lower transversenbsp;fracture of the same specimen, which shows very clearly the leaf basesnbsp;and walls in longitudinal section overlain b}quot; the investing case ofnbsp;matted ramentum.

PI. XCII, Fig. 2, and Pis. XCIII to XCV, illustrate the instructive specimen No. 500.76, which probably belongs lower in the same trunknbsp;as the last. The polished surface of the upper transverse fracture,nbsp;from which the microscopic slides were taken, is represented by PI.nbsp;XCII, Fig. 2. The figure is somewhat enlarged, and even here thenbsp;origin of the ramentum from the sides of the leaf bases is distinctlynbsp;visible without a lens. The line dividing the armor from the outer layer

is clear, and a good general idea of the nature of the latter can be gained from this view. The irregular attachment of the armor to thenbsp;axis is also well shown. PI. XCIII, Fig 1, shows this same surfacenbsp;as it appeared before it was polished. Fig. 2 gives the outer surface invested by the ramentum layer, but a few organs are I'isible,nbsp;having forced their way through it or been disarticulated near itsnbsp;outer surface.

Pis. XCIV and XCV represent two areas of the polished upper transverse plane enlarged 4 diameters. An inspection of PI. XCII,nbsp;Fig. 2, shows that there is a short interval near the center of the specimen over which, for some reason, there is no outer layer, to the leftnbsp;of which it extends entirely to the margin, and on the right of whichnbsp;it tills a deep depression in the surface. PI. XCIV includes thenbsp;greater part of the portion on the left where this lajmr is present, andnbsp;PI. XCV covers the area on the right. All the characters, genericnbsp;and specific, are admirably brought out in these two enlarged areas,nbsp;especially the nature of the ramentum outside of the armor, and itsnbsp;wavy, crinkled character as determined by the irregularities of thenbsp;surface and the unknown agencies that compressed it from without andnbsp;packed it down against the trunk. In several places portions of leafnbsp;bases and perhaps of reproductive orguns, detached from the armornbsp;and caught, as it were, in the meshes of chaff, can be seen lodged in thenbsp;outer coat. These show their normal vascular structure under thenbsp;compound microscope. Owing to inequalities of pressure and unexplained conditions, the long strands of matted chaff are differentiatednbsp;into bands of different color and density that lie parallel to one anothernbsp;and zigzag across the exposed cross sections of the investing layer.nbsp;Near the left margin of PI. XCV there is a region where one of thenbsp;petioles is clearly seen to cross the boundary line between the aimornbsp;and the ramentaceous covering, and the chaff that developed from itsnbsp;left side can also be traced across this boundaiy and out into the outernbsp;layer. This is particularly instructive from the point of view of thenbsp;origin of the latter. Upon the whole, these several illustrations affordnbsp;a tolerably clear idea of the character of this remarkable group ofnbsp;extinct plants.

Trunks small (10 to 20 cm. high, with major diameter 12 to 15 cm.), originally conical, all much compressed laterally or sometimes vertically or obliquely, unbranched; rock soft, light colored, of lownbsp;specific gravity; organs of the armor tightly appressed to the trunknbsp;for the most part upwardly, obscuring their arrangement; leaf .scars

siibrhombif, whei�e normal 15 to '20 mm. wide and 8 to 12 mm. high; leaf bases soft, rough or porous; walls 1 to 2 mm. thick, soft-sandy ornbsp;decayed and depressed, light colored or 3'ellowish; reproductivenbsp;organs few and obscure, sometimes slightljquot; elevated, elliptical in crossnbsp;section, 12 by 20 mm. in diameter, with or without visible bract scars,nbsp;the central portion obscure; armor verj' variable in thickness (0 to 25nbsp;mm.), joined to the axis bj^ a delinite but more or less irregular line;nbsp;wood 2 cm. thick; cortical parenchimia 1 cm. thick; hbrous zone 1cm.nbsp;thick, not differentiated; medulla in laterall3^ compressed specimens anbsp;thin slab 5 mm. thick and T cm. long, in verticalh- compressednbsp;specimens circular, 2 cm. in diameter.

500.18, and 500.35 are nearl3^ complete trunks. No. 500.18 being verticalhquot; or somewhat obliquehquot; compressed. All the rest are lateralhquot;nbsp;compressed. Nos. 500.22, 500.68, and 500.69 ma3quot; all belong to thenbsp;same trunk, the last two especialhquot; resembling each other, but none ofnbsp;them are contiguous. The3quot; all bear a general resemblance to one ornbsp;other of the species alread3' described, but aside from their great compression and small size, not specilic characters in themselves, there arenbsp;numerous features which forbid their union with anv of these.

The onh� specimens that it wquot;as thought worth while to illustrate are Nos. 500.4 and 500.18. The former is shown on PL XCVI.nbsp;The figure gives an exaggerated idea of the specimen, which is flat andnbsp;thin, and onhquot; the broad side was taken. PI. XCVII illustrates No.

500.18, Pig. 1 showing the upper side which below is a side view, butnbsp;near the top the apex is turned toward the observer and the terminalnbsp;bud ma3^ be seen a little on the left. The lack of perspective causesnbsp;its true form to be obscured.

Trunks rather small (10 to 15 cm. high, 10 to 20 cm. in diameter), veiy irregular in shape, more or less compressed in various directions andnbsp;distorted, often much branched with several primar3quot; axes, sometimesnbsp;with secondaiy axes onhquot;, the branches usualhquot; terminating in regular

buds; rock substance soft except where excessively mineralized, light ash colored wdth dark, sharply contrasting stripes and spots, usuallynbsp;of low specific gravit}^; organs of the armor mostly ascending andnbsp;adjusted to the axes of the branches; phyllotaxj^ not generalijn traceable except in secondary arrangement around certain branches; leafnbsp;scars subrhombic or somewhat elliptical, 15 to 20 mm. wnide, 8 to 12 mm.nbsp;high; leaf bases dark and affected with w�hite fistular punctations;nbsp;walls 2 to 4 mm. thick, soft-sandy, white or yellowish, striate, oftennbsp;wdth a median groove, depression, or crack; reproductive organs somewhat rare, often well-developed, either flush with the surface or raisednbsp;above it, elliptical in cross section, variable in size, 15 to 30 mm. innbsp;diameter, surrounded by large triangular bract scars, the central portion solid and marked by the scars of the essential organs; armor 4 tonbsp;6 cm. thick, joined to the axis by an uneven, more or less derinite line;nbsp;Wood 2 to 3 cm. thick; cortical parenchyma 1 to 2 cm. thick; ffbrousnbsp;eone 1 to 2 cm. thick, sometimes in twm rings wdth radiate structure;nbsp;medulla 3 to 6 cm. in diameter, fine-grained and homogeneous.

This species is one of the most common in the Jurassic of Wyoming, and is t\quot;pical of the smaller branching forms. It embraces Nos.nbsp;500.5, 500.23, 500.30, 500.36, 500.38, 500.41, 500.49, 500.T0, 500.77,nbsp;500.78, 500.80, and 500.82. Nos. 500.49 and 500.77 lit together, andnbsp;No. 500.41 evidently belongs to the same trunk. A small piece hasnbsp;become detached from No. 500.49. Nos. 500.78 and 500.82 also litnbsp;together, and No. 500.70 seems to form a cap to this small trunk, butnbsp;a portion is lost between them. The rest are all single. Nos. 500; 5nbsp;and 500.23 are practically complete trunks. Nos. 500.36 and 500.38nbsp;are parts of two of the largest trunks of the species, and No. 500.30nbsp;is over half of another nearly as large. They are all very handsomenbsp;specimens, presenting the regular mottled striped or spotted appearance due to contrast between the dark leaf bases and the light-colorednbsp;walls. No. 500.23 is nearly unbranched and is anomalous in severalnbsp;respects. It may represent a different species, but can not be identified with any other specific group.

Pis. XCVIII and XCIX represent the two opposite broadest sides of the specimen Xo. 500.5; Pis. C and Cl afford side views of the finenbsp;branehinj? trunk No. 500.38, and PI. CII shows the interior from thenbsp;fractured side; PI. CIII shows the outer surface and PI. CIV the innernbsp;fractured surface of No. 500.30; PI. CV presents the best-preservednbsp;side of the trunk No. 500.36 with its broken summit, and PI. CVInbsp;includes the broken base and a portion of the other side. Views ofnbsp;the two sides of the combined Nos. 500.49 and 500.77 are given in Pis.nbsp;evil and CVIII, and the internal structure of No. 500.49, as revealednbsp;by the transverse fracture, is shown in PI. CIX. The nearly complete small trunk made up of Nos. 500.78 and 500.82 is well shownnbsp;on PI. CX, in wPich a is the former and T) the latter of these specimens. PI. CXI represents the specimen No. 500.70, which is believednbsp;to be the apex of that trunk extending over portions that are lost innbsp;the lower pieces. Fig. 1 is a view from the top showing the roundednbsp;summit, and Fig. 2 a view from below showing the concave, partiallynbsp;decajmd fracture, corresponding very closely with the upper portionnbsp;of No. 500.82 as seen in PI. CX at 1. The anomalous specimen, No.nbsp;500.23, is shown on PI. CXIl, Fig. 1 being a view of the left top andnbsp;Fig. 2 a view of one side.

Trunks small, 8 to 14 cm. high, 10 to 20 cm. in diameter, ellipsoidal or conical, somewhat laterally compressed or otherwise distorted, covered with small secondary axes forming prominences or jirotuberancesnbsp;and giving the specimens a knotty or gnarlj^ appearance; rock hard,nbsp;light ash colored or brown on weathered surfaces, black within, ofnbsp;medium specific gravity; organs of the armor generally horizontal;nbsp;leaf scars subrhombic, 15 to 20 mm. wide, 5 to 10 mm. high; leaf basesnbsp;punctate with small white tubes; walls 1 to 3 mm. thick, firm, lightnbsp;colored, striate, sometimes with a median groove or line; reproductivenbsp;organs few, obscure, simulating the secondary axes, surrounded bynbsp;large subrhombic involucral bract scars in several rows passing into'nbsp;leaf scars, central portion solid, heterogeneous; armor 2 to 4 cm. thick,nbsp;joined to the axis by a definite line; wood 2 to 4 cm. thick; corticalnbsp;parenchyma 1 cm. thick; fibrous zonel to 3 cm. thick, consisting of twonbsp;or throe rings, the outer one showing radiate structure; medulla eithernbsp;circular and 4 cm. in diameter or elliptical in cross section, the lessernbsp;diameter 2 to 4 cm. and the greater 3 to 8 cm.

After considerable hesitation 1 have decided to group together seven of the specimens under this name, although from different states ofnbsp;20 GEOL, PT 2-26

preservation and degrees of compression thej^ present a somewhat varied aspect. They all agree, however, in the one leading characternbsp;of being more or less densely covered with small protruding secondarynbsp;axes which greatly obscure and distort all other characters. I namenbsp;the species from the character, using the word nodosa in its primaiynbsp;and more correct sense of knotty oy full of knots, and not in the secondary and less correct sense which most naturalists give it oi jointed,nbsp;which should properly be expressed by the Latin word articulatus.

With the exception of No. 500.21 these are all nearly perfect trunks. That one seems to be only the upper part of a trunk larger than thenbsp;rest, but it is impossible to decide how much more there was belownbsp;this, and in fact the base may not have been far awaj^. In that casenbsp;it would have had a low, vertically flattened form, which is differentnbsp;from the rest. No. 500.9 is considerably larger than the others andnbsp;has fewer branches, but it can not be referred to any other group.nbsp;Nos. 600.11, 500.12, and 600.48 are all smaller and have about thenbsp;same general facies. I would make Nos. 600.17 and 500.47 the typesnbsp;of this species. They are very similar in all respects and display thenbsp;specific characters to good advantage. They are much less distortednbsp;by pressure than the other specimens.

Pis. CXIII and CXIV give side views of the two broad sides of No. 500.9; Pis. CXV and CXVI illustrate No. 600.47, the first showingnbsp;the normal shape with contracted base, and the second the numerousnbsp;knotW branches; PI. CXVII is the only view taken of the specimennbsp;No. 500.17, very similar to the last; PI. CXVIII, Fig. 1, shows thenbsp;low rounded apex of No. 500.21, and Fig. 2 the transverse fracture.nbsp;The former is covered with little knots, but they do not come outnbsp;well in the photograph. Pis. CXIX and CXX illustrate the smallnbsp;specimen No. 500.11, PI. CXIX giving the broadest side, PI. CXX,nbsp;Fig. 1, one of the other side views, and PL CXX, Fig. 2, a view of thenbsp;base. PI. CXXI, Figs. 1 and 2, show, respective!}^, the side and basenbsp;of No. 500.48, and PL CXXII, Figs. 1 and 2, do the same for No.nbsp;500.12, the last figure showing the concave and perhaps somewhatnbsp;decayed base, the axis and lower leaf bases being clearly exposed.

Trunks of medium size, short-cylindrical, rounded at the summit, somewhat laterally compressed, unbranched; rock rather hard, drabnbsp;on the weathered surfaces, dark within with white stripes, of mediumnbsp;specific gravity; organs of the armor ascending, especially above thenbsp;middle toward the summit, as seen on the fractured surfaces, curvingnbsp;first upward and then gracefully outward in continuation of the clearlynbsp;marked strands from the interior of the axis; leaf scars subellipticalnbsp;or subrhombic, 12 to 15 mm. wide, 5 to 6 mm. high; leaf bases hard,nbsp;dark, and porous; Avails 3 to 5 mm. thick, hard and smooth, lightnbsp;colored or nearly white; reproductive organs few and obscure; armornbsp;3 to 5 cm. thick, irregularly joined to the axis; woody zone 2 cm.nbsp;thick, undifferentiated; medulla 2 to 3 cm. in diameter, black, stripednbsp;and blotched with white flinty patches.

This species includes the specimens numbered 500.42,500.46, 500.59, 500.71, and 500.75, but they all probably belong to the same trunk.nbsp;Xo. 500.46 matches No. 500.42 and No. 500.75 matches No. 500.46 bynbsp;a narrow facet with the loss of intervening chips. No. 500.71 hasnbsp;exactW the same markings as No. 500.42 on the side opposite No.nbsp;500.46. These markings are too definite and peculiar to recur, andnbsp;amount to a proof of identity, although a thin plate between has disappeared. No. 500.59 is evidently the downward continuation of No.nbsp;500.42. On one side there is almost complete continuity, but a largenbsp;triangular piece is wanting on the other side.

The specific name, from Latin eimis, curl, refers to the beautiful curAring lines and different-colored stripes formed bjquot; the A^ariousnbsp;strands and organs of the armor as seen on the fractured surfaces.

After all are put together we still probably have less than half the original trunk.

In PI. CXXIII (a to d) thefour fragments Nos. 500.42,500.46,500.59, and 500.75, Avhich all join by fractured surfaces or areas of contact ofnbsp;greater or less extent, are shown in their natural relations. No.nbsp;500.59 forms the lowest part. No. 500.42 joins it above, reachingnbsp;nearly to the apex. No. 500.46 joins No. 500.42 by a longitudinal

fracture and reaches to about the center of the trunk. No. 600.75 lies bj' the side of this, carrying the summit some distance past thenbsp;center. The figure lies in the position in which the specimens werenbsp;placed for photographing. There was no other position in whichnbsp;they could be made to lie for that purpose. It is therefore necessarynbsp;to remember that the base is on the right and the summit on the left,nbsp;so that in order to see the trunk in the position in which it grew it isnbsp;necessary to turn the plate.

PI. CXXIV shows the innermost and approximately central longitudinal fracture of No. 500.42, and PI. CXXV'the outer somewhat tangential longitudinal fracture of the same specimen. PI. CXXVI shows the two broken sides of No. 500.46, Fig. 1 being the face that matchesnbsp;No. 500.42 and Fig. 2 that which joins No. 500.75. PI. CXXVII showsnbsp;the two sides of No. 500.75 in the same way,Fig. 1 being the fracturenbsp;joining No. 500.42 and Fig. 2 the outer fracture. PI. CXXVIII prenbsp;sents the two sides of No. 600.71, which very nearly joins No. 500.42 onnbsp;the opposite side from No. 500.46. Fig. 1 is the broader and Fig. 2nbsp;the narrower face. PI. CXXIX represents the basal specimen. No.nbsp;500.69, which is of the same thickness as No. 500.42, and, with somenbsp;loss, a downward extension of it. Fig. 1 shows the face which constitutes a continuation of the inner fracture of No. 500.42 representednbsp;on PL CXXIV, and Fig. 2 that of the tangential fracture, which is innbsp;like manner a continuation of the side represented in PI. CXXY.

Trunks small or of medium size (12 to 20 cm. high, 8 to 20 cm. in diameter), ellipsoidal, somewhat compressed latterly or (in one specimen) vertically, unbranched; rock hard and fine-grained, light colorednbsp;on the weathered surfaces, dark within, variegated with brown ornbsp;white stripes or spots, of medium specific gravity; organs of the armornbsp;horizontal; rows of scars making an angle of 50� with the axis in bothnbsp;directions (traceable only in one specimen); leaf scars subrhombic, 12nbsp;to 20 mm. wide, 6 to 9 mm. high; leaf bases hard, fine in structure,nbsp;punctate or porous; walls 1 to 3 mm. thick, soft-sandy, and more ornbsp;less decayed, light colored, sunken between the leaf bases, striate ornbsp;wrinkled, sometimes with a median line or commissure; reproductivenbsp;organs mostly concealed, well developed, generally projecting, 15 bynbsp;25 mm. in diameter, surrounded by narrow bract scars, the centralnbsp;portion solid and showing the scars of floral organs; armor 3 to 5 cm.nbsp;thick, definitely but irregularly joined to the axis, the leaf bases penetrating to different depths; wood 2 to 3 cm. thick, clearly exposed onnbsp;longitudinal and transverse sections; cortical parenchyma 1 cm. thick.

quot;��'��I nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;J�EASSIC CYCADS B�EOM WYOMING.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;405

irregular on its outer, even on its inner face; fibrous zone consisting of three very definite exogenous rings of wood, the outer 5 mm. thick,nbsp;the middle one 2 mm. thick, and the inner one 1 cm. thick, all withnbsp;radiate structure, the medullary rays visible across the entire zone,nbsp;the inner wall of which is scalloped by the rounded inner edges ofnbsp;definite woody wedges, 8 mm. wide, and the sharp reentrant anglesnbsp;between them; medulla when circular 4 cm. in diameter, when elliptical 3 by 5 cm., in one specimen 5 bj' 7 cm. in diameter.

This species is represented by seven different numbers in the collection, but Nos. 500.13 and 500.72, Nos. 500.44 and 500.73, and Nos. 500.53 and 500.61 each match and complement each other. No.nbsp;500.37 is larger than the rest and represents most of the lower partnbsp;of a trunk. With the exception of Nos. 500.53 and 500.61 all thenbsp;specimens so closely resemble one another that the suspicion arisesnbsp;that they may all belong to the upper part of No. 500.37. But a carefulnbsp;examination negatives this view, and it seems necessaiy to supposenbsp;that they represent at least two different trunks. The combinationnbsp;Nos. 500.44 and 500.73 may be a part of the same trunk as No. 500.37,nbsp;but the combination Nos. 500.13 and 500.72 must be distinct, as itnbsp;forms nearly half of a trunk of different shape, with the large mammillary terminal bud and a small portion of the base, which show thatnbsp;this trunk was low and vertically compressed, if at all.

The combination Nos. 500.53 and 500.61 constitute more than two-thirds of a handsome little trunk, broken longitudinally through the center of the axis and one of the halves tranversely above thenbsp;middle, the fractures being as clear and perfect as if sawn. Thisnbsp;specimen shows the internal structure more perfectly than any othernbsp;in the collection, especially the three exogenous rings of wood, asnbsp;described.

Pi. CXXX shows the back or outer surface of No. 500.53 and PI. CXXXI the base of the nearly complete trunk resulting from thenbsp;complementary Nos. 500.53 {a) and 500.61 {h). PI. CXXXII illustratesnbsp;the internal structure of the same trunk. Fig. 1 being the longitudinalnbsp;section offered by No. 500.53 and Fig. 2 the transverse section of No.nbsp;500.61, which has already been described. PI. CXXXIII illusti-atesnbsp;in a similar manner the combination Nos. 500.13 {a) and 500.72 (5).nbsp;Fig. 1 is a somewhat oblique view, showing the terminal bud and outer

surface generally, and Fig. 2 the tranverse fracture. PI. CXXXIV gives a side view of No. 500.37, PI. CXXXV, Fig 1, a view of itsnbsp;base, and Fig. 2 the transverse fracture. PI. CXXXVI, Fig. 1,nbsp;shows the almost wholly concealed outer surface of the combinationnbsp;Nos. 500.44 (5) and 500.73 (a), and Fig. 2 the transverse section at topnbsp;of No. 500.44. PI. CXXXVII gives the longitudinal fractures of thenbsp;same two fragments.

Trunks rather large (15 to 25 cm. high, 2 to 25 cm. in diameter), cjdindrical or subellipsoidal, somewhat compressed laterallj^ or vertically, mostly unbranched; rock hard and much mineralized within,nbsp;dark brown on the surface, the fractured surfaces variegated with blacknbsp;and white, more or less flinty or chalcedonized; specific gravitj^ abovenbsp;the mean; organs of the armor horizontal or radiating from an equatorial zone; leaf scars subelliptical, 10 to 15 mm. wide, 6 to 9 mm.nbsp;high, hard, dark, rough, punctate with white, tubular pores; wallsnbsp;1 to 3 mm. thick, firm and smooth, light colored or yellowish, sunknbsp;below the leaf bases, with a median line or groove; reproductive organsnbsp;few, mostly concealed by the ramentum coating, where exposed wellnbsp;developed, raised above the leaf bases, mostly elliptical and 15 by 20nbsp;mm. in diameter, inclosed in an involucre of narrowly rhombic bractsnbsp;visible in transverse and longitudinal section, central portions wellnbsp;shown on fractured surfaces, the interior mostly decayed and somewhat crystallized; armor 4 to 6 cm. thick, attached to the axis by annbsp;irregular, somewhat scalloped surface; wood 3 cm. thick, undifl'eren-tiated; medulla elliptical in cross section, 3 by 5 cm. in diameter.

This species includes ten numbers of Mr. Knight�s collection, but probably onl}^ represents three trunks, since five of these fragmentsnbsp;(Nos. 500.40, 500.43, 500.45, 500.66, and 500.81) all fit together andnbsp;may be built up into a single specimen representing nearlj^ half of onenbsp;trunk, and Nos. 500.50 and 500.60 also match, forming about one-thirdnbsp;of another. Nos. 500.39 and 500.55 do not exactljquot; match, but so closelynbsp;resemble each other that the amount and character of the part lost cannbsp;be determined with considerable certainty. They can not well belongnbsp;to either of the other combinations. No. 500.39 is the next mostnbsp;important specimen in the collection in furnishing the generic characters, and slides illustrating them have been prepared from it. Fromnbsp;these were obtained the cross sections of the chaff shown by Figs. 4nbsp;and 5 of PI. LXX.

No 500.34 is a small apical portion of a trunk of the same type and may well have formed the top of No. 500.39 and the lost piece that

belonged with it, but there was a short interval between them, as they do not exactl}^ match.

The weights of the several fragments in the order of the numbers are as follows:

The large combination, therefore, has a total weight of 8.19 kilograms, and Nos. 500.50 and 500.60 together weigh 4.08 kilograms.

The specific name is not meant to imply that there is anything exceptional in the ramentum of this species, although most of the specimens have a well-developed outer coating of it; but .some of the fracturesnbsp;afford fine examples, and the detailed study of the generic charactersnbsp;has chiefly been made on this species and C. Krwwltoniana.

PI. CXXXVIII illustrates the cjdindrical form of the trunk, of which Nos. 500.34, 500.39, and 500.55 are believed to be detached portions. Although none of them fit naturally, their size and generalnbsp;appearance justified this assumption, and it is not probable that thenbsp;interval is very great between them. No. 500.55,1�epresented by Fig. 3,nbsp;is considerably thicker than No. 500.39, represented by Fig. 2, i. e., thenbsp;longitudinal fracture of the latter is nearer the surface exposed, whilenbsp;in the former it falls on the other side of the center. No. 500.34nbsp;extends entirely across the trunk, and forms its apex complete.nbsp;No. 500.55 shows that the trunk was somewhat contracted at the base,nbsp;but the rapid narrowing of No. 500.39 (Fig. 2) is due to the longitudinalnbsp;fracture being considerably oblique to the axis, so that the upper endnbsp;is much thinner, and therefore narrower, than the lower. Only occasionally can any of the organs of the armor be detected. PI. CXXXIX,nbsp;Fig. 1, is a view of the upper transverse fracture of No. 500.55, andnbsp;Fig. 2 of the lower transverse fracture of No. 500.39. It is from thisnbsp;latter that microscopic slides were made after the views had been taken.nbsp;Reproductive organs may be seen in longitudinal section on both thesenbsp;faces. Pis. CXL and CXLI show the restoration of the portion of anbsp;trunk represented by the complementary fi�agments Nos. 500.45(a),nbsp;500.40(5), 500.66(c), 500.43((5), and 500.81(e), forming a good part ofnbsp;another very interesting trunk belonging to this species, the first beingnbsp;a view of the external surface, almost wholly covered with the ramentum lai^er, and the second a view of the longitudinal fractures.nbsp;PI. CXLII, Fig. 1, is a view of the transverse fracture of the lower

side of No. 500.66, which fits the upper fi-acture of No. 500.45, and Fig. 2 shows the longitudinal fracture of No. 500.40, the lower portionnbsp;of which fits the longitudinal fracture of No. 500.45, but between thenbsp;upper portion and the longitudinal fracture of No. 500.66 there is annbsp;interval of about 1 cm. Pis. CXLIIl and CXLIV represent, respectively, the outer and inner surfaces presented by the united comple-mentaiy fragments Nos. 500.50(a) and 500.60(5).

Pis. CXLV-CXLVII.

Trunk small (18 cm. high, 9 by 22 cm. in diameter), ovoid, laterally compressed, unbranched; rock hard, rust-colored without, striped andnbsp;spotted with the same in the interior, of medium specific gravity;nbsp;organs of the armor horizontal at the middle, descending below, andnbsp;erect at the summit; leaf scars subelliptical, 10 mm. wide, 5 mm. high;nbsp;leaf bases fine-grained, not porous nor punctate; walls 2 to 3 mm. thick,nbsp;soft, rust-colored, with a median groove; reproductive organs muchnbsp;obscured, sometimes raised, elliptical, 15 by 20 mm. in diameter, surrounded by thin, obscure, involucral bi'act scars, the central portionnbsp;glearl}' shown onljr on the fractured surfaces, heterogeneous and muchnbsp;altered by mineralization; armor 2 to 3 cm. thick, irregularl}^ joined tonbsp;the axis; wood 1 cm. thick; cortical parenchyma 5 mm. thick; fibrousnbsp;zone 5 mm. thick, not clearly differentiated into rings, but longitudinally striate, parallel to the axis of the trunk; medulla a thin slabnbsp;visible only on the narrow edge, where it is 1 cm. thick, apparentlynbsp;4 to 5 cm. wide.

This species includes the two fragments Nos. 500.61 and 500.74, exactly alike in all their characters and certainly belonging to the samenbsp;trunk. The fracture in both cases is longitudinal in the direction ofnbsp;the minor axis, starting in obliquely near the top and becoming vertical near the middle. In No. 500.51 this vertical direction continuesnbsp;to near the base, and then runs out on the same side it went in. In No.nbsp;500.74 it describes a sort of curve, cutting in to near the center andnbsp;out again at a still sharper angle long before it reaches the base. Thenbsp;true base and summit are therefore lost in both specimens. There isnbsp;one point at which the two pieces probably are actuall}^ contiguous,nbsp;though the surface of contact is not large enough to demonstrate this.

supposed to have been related in the perfect trunk, and shows the broad side view. PI. CXLVI is a view of the longitudinal fracturenbsp;of No. 500.51. PI. CXLVII, Fig. 1, shows the back or thin edge ofnbsp;No. 500.74, and Fig. 2 the fracture as has been described above.

Trunks of small or medium size (height not known, 15 to 25 cm. in diameter), probably conical above, strongly contracted at the base,nbsp;laterally compressed, more or less branched; rock hard and finegrained, of a nearly uniform drab color or dull reddish on the outernbsp;surface, of medium specific gravity; organs of the armor ascendingnbsp;at their origin, curving outward and becoming horizontal or declined,nbsp;rows of scars (traceable in one specimen) from left to right formingnbsp;an angle of 40� with the axis, those from rigljt to left 55�; leaf scarsnbsp;subrhombic, 12 to 20 mm. wide, 6 to 12 mm. high; leaf bases of uniform color, punctate with white tubular pores; walls 1 to 3 mm. thick,nbsp;rather soft, depressed, striate, with a median line or crack; reproductive organs imperfectl}quot; developed, somewhat raised, 15 by 22 mm. innbsp;piameter, surrounded by large bract scars passing into leaf scars,nbsp;central portion solid, I�oughened, warty; armor about 3 cm. thick;nbsp;wood 1 to 3 cm. thick, differentiated in one specimen, the outer zonenbsp;5 mm. thick, the inner 1 cm., longitudinall}' striate; medulla 15 to 30nbsp;mm. in diameter, hard, tine-grained, and homogeneous.

The specimens constituting this species are Nos. 500.56, 500.57, 500.58, and 500.79. With the exception of the last their generalnbsp;resemblance is obvious, which probably accounts for the contiguity innbsp;the numbers. No. 500.79 is probably a thin segment from muchnbsp;higher on the same trunk as No. 500.56, where the size and shape hadnbsp;considerably changed, but the same structure persists. Nos. 500.57nbsp;and 500.58 are portions of the lower end of two different trunks.

The weights of the several fragments, in the order of the numbers, are as follows:

PI. CXLVIII, Figs. 1 and 2, show respectively the outer surface and the longitudinal fracture of No. 500.57. PI. CXLIX is a side view,nbsp;and PI. CL a view of the longitudinal fracture of No. 500.58. PI.nbsp;CLI is designed to show the relations between Nos. 500.56 and 500.79nbsp;as above mentioned, and Figs. 1 and 2 show what seem to be the same

side of the two specimens. The interval between them was of course larger than it was possible to place between the two figures. PI. CLIInbsp;shows the other broad side of No. 500.56, and PI. CLIII gives thenbsp;upper transverse fracture of No. 500.79.

Trunk small (12 cm. high, 8 by 13 cm. in diameter), conical-fiattened, rounded at the summit, laterally compressed, uiibranched; rock verynbsp;hard, coarse-grained, of a gray color and very high specific gravity;nbsp;organs of the armor upwardly appressed, especially on one side; rows ofnbsp;scars from left to right making an angle of 35�, those from right to leftnbsp;of 50�, with the axis; scars subrhombic, 18 to 22 mm. wide, 8 to 10 mm.nbsp;high; leaf bases on the side of the specimen appressed to the trunknbsp;but exposed at their summits and on their lower sides, the keel distinct,nbsp;rough or honeycombed on the exposed ends, but on fresh fractures finenbsp;in structure and white-punctate with small, narrowly elliptical, whitenbsp;pores appearing as short white lines; vascular bundles faintly visible,nbsp;forming a row part way round the petiole on the side next the trunk;nbsp;walls 1 to 2 mm. thick, striate with alternating light and dark lines;nbsp;reproductive organs few, poorly developed, sometimes raised, 2 bynbsp;3 cm. in diameter, the interior porous or heterogeneous; armor 2 cm.nbsp;thick, joined to the axis by a definite line of appreciable thicknessnbsp;(libro-cambium layer), wood 2 cm. thick; cortical parnechyma 1 cm.nbsp;thick, of coarse structure; fibrous zone 1 cm. thick, consisting of twonbsp;rings of equal thickness separated by a light-colored band, the structure radially disposed; medulla 2 by 6 cm. in diameter, hard and coarsenbsp;with white punctations or variously shaped markings.

This small specimen. No. 500.63 of the collection, is so totally different from all the rest that it was necessary to regard it as constituting a species by itself. It weighs 1.5 kilograms and has the highestnbsp;specific gravity observed, feeling almost like heavj^ spar, whence thenbsp;specific name.

Trunks large (30 to 40 cm. high, 20 to 30 cm. in larger diameter), obovate, contracted at the base, much laterally compressed,nbsp;unbranched or with a few small secondary axes; rock hard and fine atnbsp;least in the interior, light colored or brown on weathered surfaces.

dark or black on freshly exposed ones, of medium specific gravity; organs of the armor horizontal; leaf scars subrhombic, 15 to 20 mm.nbsp;wide, 7 to 10 mm. high; leaf bases hard, rough or porous, with anbsp;raised ridge near the margin indicating the position of the vascularnbsp;bundles, which are themselves sometimes visible in the form of pits;nbsp;walls 2 to 5 mm. thick, hard and somewhat porous, light colored withnbsp;darker striae; reproductive organs numerous, well developed, prominently projecting in the form of large warty protuberances distortingnbsp;the arrangement of the leaves, elliptical in cross section, 20 by 30 mm.nbsp;in diameter, surrounded by large, narrowly subrhombic bract scars innbsp;several rows passing into leaf scars, central portions heterogeneous,nbsp;marked by the scars of the essential organs; annor 2 to 5 cm. thick,nbsp;clearly but irregularly joined to the axis; woody zone 15 mm. thick,nbsp;not differentiated; medulla a thin slab 3 to 6 cm. thick, 15 cm. wide,nbsp;of a fine uniform structure resembling the white iron ore of the Potomac beds of Maryland.

Nos. 500.27, 500.32, and 500.64 are referred to this species. The last is anomalous and shows relatively few of the characters, but itnbsp;has the same shape. The fruits are little elevated, but otherwise thisnbsp;leading character holds for it. No. 500.27 is probably the top of thenbsp;same trunk as No. 500.32, but there is an interval between them, andnbsp;they have been subjected to different conditions since thej^ became fossilized. On a casual view, therefore, they do not seem so closel}^ tonbsp;resemble each other as they do when carefully inspected. They arenbsp;then found to have almost exactly the same width, thickness, and g'en-eral form, so that it is easy to see which sides correspond. All thenbsp;characters also agree except that the fruiting axes are more prominent on No. 500.32, representing the lower portion. This is partlynbsp;due to the fact that this specimen has suffered more from erosion,nbsp;and owing to the greater hardness of these organs they are made tonbsp;stand out more conspicuously. It was the appearance thus producednbsp;that suggested the specific name.

In Pis. CLV and CLVI the two specimens. Nos. 500.32 and 500.27, are represented from opposite broad sides in the position in whichnbsp;they are supposed to have existed as a trunk, but for Avant of spacenbsp;on the plate they had to be brought practically together, whereas, asnbsp;already stated, the theory of their identit}quot; requires the assumption ofnbsp;a certain amount of loss between these parts. PI. CLV, Fig. 1, shoAvsnbsp;the wartA^ projections better than any other. PI. CLVII is the onlynbsp;view taken of No. 500.64 and represents its best side.

Trunks of medium size (18 cm. high, 7 to 12 cm. in lesser, and 16 to 20 cm. in g-reater diameter), ovoid or subconical, laterally compressed,nbsp;unbranched; rock hard, gray on weathered surfaces, drab in the interior, black on fresh exposures, with rather high specific gravity; organsnbsp;of the armor horizontal; rows of scars forming an angle in eithernbsp;direction of 45� to 50�; leaf scars sub rhombic, 15 to 20 mm. wide, 7nbsp;to 9 mm. high; leaf bases hard and firm, rough on the exposed ends;nbsp;walls 2 to 4 mm. thick, light colored and contrasting with the leaf bases,nbsp;sometimes with a median ridge; reproductive organs few and poorlynbsp;preserved; armor 2 to 4 cm. thick, joined to the axis bj^ a clear line;nbsp;wood 15 to 20 mm. thick; outer zone 5 mm. thick, traversed by raysnbsp;or vessels; inner zone consisting of two rings, the outer 5 mm. thicknbsp;with fine radiate structure showing medullary rays and woody wedges,nbsp;the inner 5 to 10 mm. thick of a less definite structure; medullanbsp;elliptical in cross section, lesser diameter 2 to 3 cm., greater 8 cni.,nbsp;homogeneous.

The two specimens, Nos. 500.28 and 500.31, which I have brought together here, have at first view very little to mark them or interestnbsp;the student, but while they differ essentially from all others in thenbsp;collection, they resemble each other in all the main points. No.nbsp;500.28 is smaller and more compressed, and is mostly black on thenbsp;outer surface, but the outer coating has pretty much entirely disappeared and the leaf scars are clearly exposed. The fracture at thenbsp;base also reveals some ver}^ definite internal structure. No. 500.31nbsp;shows much less, but so far as visible the characters are the same.nbsp;The former weighs 2.33 and the latter 3.97 kilograms. The specificnbsp;name refers to the somewhat negative and meager character of thenbsp;specimens.

Pis. CLVIII and CLIX show opposite sides of No. 500.28, and Pis. CLX and CLXI those of No. 500.31. In the former of these specimens scarcely any ramentum remains on the surface and the leaf scarsnbsp;are quite clearly shown. The same is true for one side of No. 500.31,nbsp;but the other side, represented on PI. CLXI, shows the area overnbsp;which it has been scaled off along a definite line, and the edge of it isnbsp;distinctly visible.

Trunk small (12 cm. high, 14 by 15 cm. in diameter), irregularly and obliquely short-conical, somewhat vertically compressed.

uiibranched, broad at the concave base, terminating in an imperfect bud; rock soft on the surface, harder within, dark colored or bluishnbsp;except a light weathered area, the specific gravity above the normal;nbsp;organs of the armor at right angles to the oblique axis; rows of scarsnbsp;from left to right making an angle with the axis of 75� to 80�, thosenbsp;from right to left of 30� to 40�; leaf scars narrowly subrhombic,nbsp;very small, 12 to 13 mm. wide, 3 to 5 mm. high; leaf bases dark, fiimnbsp;but porous; walls 3 to 5 mm. thick, of denser structure than the leaves,nbsp;lighter colored, sometimes with darker stripes; reproductive organsnbsp;doubtful and practically wanting ; armor 2 cm. thick, joined to the axisnbsp;by a definite line ; wood 2 cm. thick,' undifferentiated ; medulla elliptical, 3 by 6 cm. thick, smooth and homogeneous.

It has been necessary to I�egard the nearly perfect, compact, and rather handsome little trunk. No. 500.16, as constituting a species bynbsp;itself, and it is much to be hoped that other specimens of the samenbsp;may be found. It weighs 2.18 kilograms.

PI. CLXII, Pig. 1, gives a good idea of it as seen from one side, and Fig. 2 shows the somewhat concave base.

Trunk small, elliptical in cross section, much verticall}^ compressed, having the form, when inverted, of a shoe or moccasin, having anbsp;height (thickness) of 7 cm., a width (lesser diameter) of 12 cm., and anbsp;length (greater diameter) of 19 cm., with two lateral axes nearl}^ atnbsp;right angles to the primary axis, the terminal bud forming a largenbsp;raised area, the base projecting downward in a rounded protuberance;nbsp;rock soft and coarse-grained, dark brown or nearly black, bluishnbsp;within, of low specific gravity; organs of the armor mostly appressednbsp;or concealed; leaf scars where visible distorted and abnormal in shape,nbsp;subelliptical, 12 to 15 mm. wide, 4 to 5 mm. high; leaf bases coarsenbsp;and homogeneous in texture; walls 1 to 3 mm. thick, relatively hardnbsp;and light colored; reproductive organs few, abortive or immature;

thick, coarse; inner zone 2 cm. thick, finer, and longitudinally striate; medulla elliptical, 3 by 5 cm. in diameter, coarse and homogeneous.

No. 500.83 of Professor Knight�s collection, which constitutes the species, is in all respects a unique specimen, and notwithstanding itsnbsp;apparent deformity there is evidence that this is by no means whollynbsp;due to external agencies. The position in which the trunk grew nonbsp;doubt had much to do with this, but it probably represents a dwarf, flat,nbsp;branching species, all the members of which would present m�st of

these peculiarities. When inverted and laid on its back, the terminal bud down and the base uppermost, it has much the shape of a broad,nbsp;low, wooden shoe or sandal, the thicker end representing the heel andnbsp;the thin, flattened end, which is a sort of terminal bud of one of thenbsp;lateral branches, representing the toe � a comparison which suggestednbsp;the specific name.

PI. CLXIII is a view from the top downward, and PI. CLXIV from the bottom upwai�d.

Trunks rather large and relatively tall (the largest of the specimens 39 cm. high, 12 by 20 cm. in diameter), subcylindrical, slightly diminishing from base to summit, laterally compressed, having a few secondarynbsp;axes, terminating in a large conical bud, the base projecting; rock ofnbsp;medium hardness and specific gravity, light brown on weathered surfaces, nearly black within and on freshly exposed portions; organs ofnbsp;the armor slightl}^ ascending; rows of scars from left to right makingnbsp;an angle with the axis of 45�, those from right to left of 50�; leaf scarsnbsp;subrhombic, 20 to 25 mm. wide, 8 to 12 mm. high; leaf bases rough andnbsp;punctate; walls 1 to 2 mm. thick, friable, white, with a median line ornbsp;crack; reproductive organs well developed, usually raised or projecting,nbsp;elliptical in cross section, 2 by 3 cm. in diameter or larger, the involu-cral bracts not visible, the central portions solid and amorphous; armornbsp;1 to 3 cm. thick, joined to the axis by a more or less definite line, allnbsp;within it a black undifferentiated mass of cherty and apparently struc-tui�eless matter which tends to crack into cubes or flake off.

The large fine specimen, No. 500.1, scarcely injured by being broken in two by an obliquely transverse fracture near the base, was at firstnbsp;supposed to be altogether unique, but in my efforts to correlate thenbsp;fragment. No. 500.24, of a considerably smaller trunk, I found that itnbsp;had scarcely any affinities except with this, and upon a thorough comparison of all the characters I am convinced that it belongs to the samenbsp;species. That specimen was broken into three unequal pieces, butnbsp;mended with glue before sending. A small flake or cap, numberednbsp;500.25, from the light weathered surface of some trunk, having anbsp;coarse black structure on the fractured side, resembles No. 500.24nbsp;more than any other specimen, but does not exactly fit its broken summit. Eather than leave it wholly unassigned I assume that it belongsnbsp;here.

The .specific name has a vague reference to the Freezeout Hills, in which the beds occur.

Pis. CLXV and CLXVI are side views of the opposite side of No. 600.1, and PI. CLXVII is a view of its base. Pis. CLXVIll andnbsp;CLXIX show the opposite sides of No. 500.24.

Trunk of maximum size (39 cm. high, 21 by 39 cm. in diameter), subglobular, both laterall}^ and vertically compressed, the principalnbsp;axis oblique to the plane of compression, having numerous secondarynbsp;axes forming lai'ge short branches or rounded elei^ations interspersednbsp;with smaller ones, the primary axis terminating in a well-developednbsp;bud, the base occupied by a circular concavity; rock of medium hardness and specific gravity, nearly black, considerably mineralized in thenbsp;interior; organs of the armor radiating from an equatorial zone;nbsp;phjdlotaxy not traceable; leaf scars subi'hombic, rhombic, or irregularnbsp;in shape, 30 mm. wide, 15 mm. high; leaf bases rough and porous;nbsp;walls 2 to 3 mm. thick, firm, and definitely bounded, longitudinallynbsp;striate with raised white lines, median line higher than the rest;nbsp;reproductive organs numerous but not well developed, of two kinds,nbsp;large and small, the former difficult to distinguish from secondarynbsp;axes, all usually more or less elevated, but occasionalty depressed ornbsp;decayed so as to leave a shallow concavity, elliptical in cross section,nbsp;the larger ones 3 by 5 cm. in diameter, the smaller about half as large,nbsp;the former class surrounded by faintly visible large subrhombic invo-lucral bract scars simulating and passing into leaf scars, the centralnbsp;portions solid and heterogeneous; armor 4 to 5 cm. thick, its junctionnbsp;with the axis obscure; woody zone 4 to 6 cm. thick, undifferentiated;nbsp;medulla nearty circular, 5 to 6 cm. in diameter, smooth and homogeneous in structure.

The largest specimen in the collection, No. 500.2, weighing 37.69 kilograms, is unique also in its form and a considerable number ofnbsp;other characters, and has to form a species by itself. I name it fornbsp;Carbon County, in which the locality for all the specimens is located.nbsp;It constitutes an almost complete trunk, but came in two nearl}^ equalnbsp;pieces, the fracture passing through the narrowest dimension, throughnbsp;the center of the apex, down the back and lower side, and emerging atnbsp;the center of the basal concavity along a nearlj^ even plane. Unfortunately, the interior thus exposed shows scarcety any structure.

PI. CLXX shows the broad rounded back of the specimen, and PL CLXXl the base and lower portion.

subellipsoidal, somewhat laterally compressed, unbranched, depressed at the summit; axis eccentric; rock hard, somewhat mineralized,nbsp;dark colored or nearly black, of high specific gravity; organs of thenbsp;armor horizontal; rows of scars from left to right forming an anglenbsp;of 45� with the axis, those from right to left of 70�; leaf scars sub-rhombic or subelliptical, 18 to 20 mm. wide, 8 to 12 mm. high; leafnbsp;bases hard, punctate; walls 3 to 5 mm. thick, hard, striate, ivith ornbsp;without a median groove; reproductive organs few, poorly developed,nbsp;flush with the surface or slightly raised, elliptical in cross section,nbsp;2 by 3 cm. in diameter, surrounded by large subrhombic involucralnbsp;bract scars passing into leaf scars, the centi-al portion solid and shoAv-ing the scars of the floral organs; armor 4 to 6 cm. thick, obscurelynbsp;attached to the axis; woody zone 3 to 4 cm. thick, undifferentiated;nbsp;medulla 6 b}^ 10 cm. in diameter, difficult to distinguish from thenbsp;woody zone, harol and black, with flinty or crystalline areas.

The next largest specimen in the collection, and probably the finest, from the standpoint of symmetry and general appearance, is No. 500.65.nbsp;It came in two pieces of unequal size, caused by a transverse fracturenbsp;below the middle. The larger piece weighs 15.48 and the smaller 9.8nbsp;kilograms, making the total Aveight 25.28 kilograms. There Avas onenbsp;other specimen, viz. No. 500.33, which so closely resembles this thatnbsp;it is impossible to separate it. It consists of considerably over halfnbsp;of the lower portion of a somewhat smaller trunk, having the basenbsp;perfect and a nearly horizontal transverse fracture across the truidcnbsp;above This Aveighs 8.87 kilograms.

I take great pleasure in dedicating this fine species of Cycadella to Prof. Wilbur C. Knight, State geologist of Wyoming, through Avhosenbsp;enterprise the collection was made, and who has so generously placednbsp;it in my hands for elaboration.

PI. CLXXII represents the best-presei-Amd side of No. 500.65, PI. CLXXIII its base, and PI. CLXXIV the upper transverse fracturenbsp;of the lower piece. PI. CLXXV is the best side view of No. 500.35,nbsp;PI. CLXXVI its base, while in PL CLXXVII we have a representation of the upper transverse fracture.

The following is a list of the twenty species of Cycadella in the order in which they have been described:

1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cycadella Eeedii.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;4. Cycadella Knowltoniana.

2. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cycadella Beecheriana.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;5. Cycadella compressa.

3. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Cycadella Avyomingensis.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;6. Cycadella jurassica.

The order can scai�cely be called a classification. There is, however, something in common in the first twelve, viz, their general lightnbsp;color and calcareous structure, while the last seven are darker, coarsernbsp;grained, and less calcareous. C. gravis and C. verrucosa are intermediate in these respects, but. the former differs in its high specificnbsp;gravity. These distinctions all relate rather to the mineral than tonbsp;the vegetable character, and although there is always some connection between them arising out of differences of structure, still it cannbsp;scarcely be called a systematic grouping. The strictly botanical characters traverse these more conspicuous ones in such a manner thatnbsp;it is impossible to arrange the species according to both, and it wasnbsp;considered more satisfactory, upon the whole, not to attempt an}' finernbsp;classification until the internal structure can be studied, which shouldnbsp;be done, and promises most interesting- results.

Fossil wood has been reported from the Jurassic in a number of cases, but I am able to illustrate it at the present time from only twonbsp;localities.

Accompanying the cycad collection of Professor Knight were three pieces of fossil wood, numbered 500.85, 500.86, and 500.87 of thenbsp;Museum of the University of Wyoming. Two of these. Nos. 500.86nbsp;and 500.87, were placed in the hands of Dr. F. H. Knowlton, w�honbsp;offered to work out the internal structure and report the result. Onenbsp;of the specimens. No. 500.86, was a small limb somewhat split up andnbsp;splintered, and it proved difficult to obtain from it slides of the propernbsp;character. The other, No. 500.87, is a thick block of wood and hasnbsp;furnished good slides, although the structure is somewhat obscure.nbsp;Enough was learned from the other specimen to indicate that itnbsp;belongs to the same species, and the piece which was not treated, No.nbsp;500.85, is clearly a part of the same stem as No. 500.86. All thenbsp;wood, therefore, pro-bably belongs to the same species. No explanation has been made of the source of this wood further than that itnbsp;accompanied the cycads and is supposed to have been found withnbsp;them. In fact, it was at first thought possible that they might benbsp;found to belong to the interior of cj'cadean trunks. They are, therefore, of course, of the same age as the cycads.

Dr. Knowlton finds the wood probably to belong to the genus Arau-carioxylon, but to be specificalh^ distinct from any hitherto described. His note upon it is as follows;

DESCRIPTION OF A NhlW SPECIES OF ARAUCARIOXYLON FROM THE CYCAD BED OF THE FREEZEOUT HILLS, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING.

Annual ring not apparent to the naked eye, the line of demarcation between the rings consisting of only four or five slightly modifiednbsp;layers of cells; wood cells very small, approximately square in cross-section, thick walled, provided on the radial walls with a single row ofnbsp;small contiguous or weathered bordered pits; medullary rays in a singlenbsp;series of 1 to 8 superimposed cells; resin cells and resin passages whollynbsp;wanting.

Transverse section: The appearance of the wood in this section is well shown in the figure (PI. CLXXVIII, Fig. 1). The wood cells are seennbsp;to be of very uniform size and shape and are quite thick walled. Thenbsp;growth rings can not be made out by the naked eye, but under thenbsp;microscope they are found to be quite broad (2 to 3 mm.) and to be separated by only four or five layers of slightly thicker cells. The absencenbsp;of longitudinal resin cells or passages is also well shown in this section.nbsp;The medullary rays appear as long remotely broken cells.

Radial section: The wood cells as seen in this section are provided with a single row of small bordered pits. Usually they are somewhatnbsp;remote, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of PI. CLXXVIII, but occasionallynbsp;they are contiguous and slightly modified in shape by contact with eachnbsp;other. The inner pit is often minute, but the preservation is not goodnbsp;enough to permit measurements. The medullary rays are seen to benbsp;made up of relatively long slender-walled cells and probably withoutnbsp;markings, although there is some evidence to show that there may havenbsp;been narrow slits or oblong pores in their cell walls. This evidence,nbsp;however, is not conclusive.

Tangential section: The wood cells are without pits or markings on this wall, at least so far as can be made out. The medullary raysnbsp;are very numerous and composed of from one to not more than twelvenbsp;superimposed cells, and usually the number is from three to perhapsnbsp;five or six. They are very small and have relatively thick walls.

Discussion: The placing of this wood in the genus Araucarioxylon is open to more or less question, yet as it approaches more closely tonbsp;this genus, I have tentatively so referred it. It has the obscure growthnbsp;rings usually to be observed in this genus, but is without certain other-characters. The medullary rays are similar to those of nulnerous speciesnbsp;of Araucarioxylon, but the pits with radial walls of the wood cells are

not the same as in what may be called t3^pical wood of the genus; that is, thejr are not in the least hexagonal. The latter feature, however,nbsp;is somewhat variable, and for the present it seems best to place thisnbsp;wood in Araucarioxylon.

This species resembles in some particulai�s several of the described species of the genus in this countiy. Thus it has the same type ofnbsp;tracheids and medullary rays as A. virginianum Kn., but has thenbsp;bordered pits quite unlike that species. On the other hand, the pitsnbsp;are quite similar to those found in A. Woodworthi Kn., of the Triassicnbsp;of Virginia and North Carolina, but the medullary rays are entirelynbsp;different. From A. arizonicwn Kn. the species under consideration,nbsp;which ag'rees somewhat in the character of the bordered pits, differsnbsp;in having the ray cells very long instead of short, and further in thenbsp;absence of pits on the tangential walls of the tracheids. The characternbsp;of the I'ays as shown in transverse section is quite similar in all ofnbsp;these species.

Locality.�Qycamp;A bed, Freezeout Hills, Carbon County, Wyoming. Collected ly W. H. Reed.

Prof. W. P. Jenney sent a few very imperfectly preserved specimens of fossil wood from his bed No. 5 of the Hay Creek region of Crook County, Wyoming, in the Black Hills, and noted its occurrencenbsp;in that bed in the ample notes that accompanied his collection.*nbsp;When I was in the Black Hills in October, 1898, Mr. H. F. Wellsnbsp;informed me that he found it frequently in the pink and white sandsnbsp;that overlie the Atlantosaurus beds, and he took me to one localitynbsp;near his house, three or four miles northwest of Sturgis, South Dakota,nbsp;where beds of carbonaceous shales containing lignite are overlain bynbsp;sands in which silicified wood occurs in great quantities and in a perfect state of preservation. I brought away one specimen which showsnbsp;the annual rings more distinctly than any other fossil wood I havenbsp;ever seen. This Dr. Knowlton also consented to treat microscopicallynbsp;for this paper. When I obtained it I had no doubt of the Jui�assicnbsp;age of the bed in which it occurred, but Dr. Knowlton finds the internal structure very modern in character, scarcely distinguishable fromnbsp;that of Pinus except in the absence of fusiform rays. I hesitate, therefore, to assert that the age is certainlji Jurassic, and reserve my finalnbsp;decision on this point until a more thorough investigation can be madenbsp;than was possible at the time I was there. Still, I think there was nonbsp;mistake, and that this specimen simply represents a Jurassic ancestornbsp;of Pinus which has persisted to the present day with little modification. Dr. Knowlton proposes for it the name Pinoxylon, as a newnbsp;genus, this name not having been used, so far as we can learn.

1 See Xineteenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, Ft. II, pp. 573, 589, flg. 122 facing p. 593.

DESCRIPTION OF A NEW GENUS AND SPECIES OF FOSSIL WOOD FROM THE JURASSIC OF THE BLACK HILI^.

Internal structure of the wood same as in Pinus, except in the absence of fusiform rays.

Trunks of medium size; annual rings broad, veiy distinct; tracheids of spring and summer wood very large, thin walled, more or lessnbsp;hexagonal in shape; tracheids of fall wood thick walled, elliptical innbsp;outline; bordered pits on radial walls of tracheids, mainly in springnbsp;wood, of large size, mostly in two rows, rarely in a single row;nbsp;medullary rays in a single series; resin cells wanting; resin passagesnbsp;present, scattered, mainly in the fall wood.

Transverse section: In this section the annual rings show very plainly, even to the naked eye, being from 2 to 4.5 mm. in width.nbsp;The distinction between the spring and fall wood can also be seen withnbsp;the naked eye, the former appearing as broad white bands and thenbsp;latter as dense black bands of varying width. Under the microscopenbsp;the line of demarcation between its fall and spring wood is observednbsp;to be very sharp, indeed. The fall wood consists of thick-walled cellsnbsp;of an elliptical or oblong outline and rather loosely placed, as may benbsp;seen from the figure (PI. CLXXIX, Fig. 1). The succeeding springnbsp;wood is composed of very large cells with relatively thin walls.

The medullary ra3fs as shown in this section (Fig. 1) are long and quite thick walled. As far as could be ascertained from the sectionsnbsp;made there are no resin cells in this wood. The resin passages, however, are present and quite numerous. They do not seem to be confined to any particular portion of the ring, but are scattered, being,nbsp;perhaps, most abundant in the fall wood. They are of relativelynbsp;large size and lined with thin-walled epithelium cells (Fig. 2).

Radial section: There is much to be seen in this section. The walls of the cells of spring and summer wbod are preserved in most casesnbsp;wfith two rather irregular rows of large bordered pits. In rare casesnbsp;these pits are in a single row, as shown in Fig. 3. The average sizenbsp;of the outer circle is .025�, that of the inner circle about .015�. Thenbsp;raj�s are seen to advantage in this section. The cells are rather long,nbsp;covering the width of usualljquot; some four or more cells of the springnbsp;wood. They are rather thick walled, the walls being stronglj^ dentatenbsp;or somewhat irregularly thickened. This irregular thickening is wellnbsp;shown in the figures. The ray cells are provided with a few scattered

boi�dered pits, usuall}^ one to the width of a spring cell of the wood, although not rarelj^ there are two in a similar width. They arenbsp;always in only one row on the ray cells. They are also shown in thenbsp;figures.

Tangential section: The rnedullary rays are naturally the most prominent feature in this section. They are always in a single superimposed series. They number from 1 to rarely 30 cells, an average numbernbsp;being from 5 to 12 cells high. None of the rays in sections examinednbsp;are of the fusiform type, or that in which resin passages are included.nbsp;The wood cells, as far as can be made out, are without pits or markingsnbsp;of any kind on their walls.

I am not a little in doubt as to the proper disposition that should be made of this interesting wood. It is so beautifully preserved, and thenbsp;histological elements are so plainly discernible, that it seemed at first annbsp;easy matter satisfactorily to place it, but a somewhat prolonged examination has failed to settle it. Before it could be examined microscopically, and basing the conclusion upon its supposed geological position,nbsp;it was presumed to belong to Araucarioxylon, but a glance at thenbsp;structure serves to show that this can not be so. This genus is without resin passages, and, moreover, is well characterized by having thenbsp;bordered pits more or less distinctly hexagonal. This hexagonal formnbsp;of the pits, of which the living Araucaria may be taken as the type,nbsp;appears to have had its origin in the Lower Paleozoic in the formsnbsp;known as Cordaites and Dadoxylon. It is sufficient to say in the presentnbsp;connection that all of these distinctive features are absent from the woodnbsp;under consideration.

From a number of other types of living wood this is separated by characters of importance. Thus from Sequoia it differs in havingnbsp;veiy broad instead of narrow growth rings and distinct resin passages,nbsp;these being either entirely absent or very imperfectly found in both thenbsp;living Sequoias, and finallj^ the absence of resin cells.

lu an exhaustive paper on the Generic Characters of the North American Taxacese and Coniferse,�^ Prof. D. P. Penhallow presents thenbsp;distinguishing characters of the living genera. They are readily divisible into two groups, as follows: Resin passages and fusiform raysnbsp;present, including Pseudotsuga, Larix, Picea, Pinus, Sequoia semper-mrens, and several species of Abies, and those in which these featuresnbsp;are wholly wanting, including Taxodium, Sequoia, Libocedrus, Juni-perus. Thuja, Cupressus, Tsuga, and most of Abies. The fossil woodnbsp;under consideration is excluded from the last of these two groups, fornbsp;it has very pronounced resin passages, and it must therefore benbsp;included in the first division in spite of the fact that there are seemingnbsp;contradictions. This first division is again divisible into three subgroups on characters taken from the presence or absence of the fusi-

J Trans. Eoy. Soc. Canada, 2d series, Vol, II, Section IV, 1896, pp. 33-57, pis. i-vi.

form rays. Our fossil seems to combine certain of the characters here given as distinct for the living woods; that is, our wood has distinct resin passages, but is without the fusiform rays. But after careful examination it appears to be most closely related to the genusnbsp;Pinus. It agrees perfectly in having broad growth rings, dentate ornbsp;irregularly thickened walls to the medullary rays, and prominent resinnbsp;passages. It differs in the absence of the fusiform rays. From itsnbsp;undoubted resemblance to Pinus I have ventured to regard it as annbsp;ancestral form of this genus and to give it the name of Pinoxjdon. Itnbsp;may be possible that the absence of this character of the fusiform raysnbsp;is of such importance that it can not be regarded as the ancestor of ournbsp;modern pines, but on account of its unquestioned resemblance in othernbsp;perhaps equally important characters I have so regarded it.

Locality.�Three miles northwest of Sturgis, South Dakota. Probably Upper Jurassic. Collected by Lester F. Ward, October 3, 1898.

To complete this presentation of the status of the Older Mesozoic floras of the United States I introduce a table giving all the speciesnbsp;thus far known, with the general region or area in each formation atnbsp;which they occur.

WARD] DISTRIBUTION OF THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS. 423 Table, of distribution of fossil plants of Older Mesozoic of the United States�Continued.

434 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES.

Table of (liMribiMion of fosnl plants of Older Mesozoic of the United States�Continued.

WARD.] DISTEIBUTION OF THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLOKA8. 425 Table of disfribution of fossil plants of Older Mesozoic of the United States�Continued.

426 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;OLDEE MESOZOIC FLOBAS OF UNITED STATES.

Table of disiribution of fossil plants of Older Mesozoic of the United Slates�Continued.

WARD,] DISTRIBUTION OF THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS. 427 Table of distribution of fossil plants of Older Mesozoic of the United States�Continued.

428 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES.

Table of distribution of fossil plants of Older Mesozoic of ike United States�Continued.

Name.

Triassic.

Jurassic.

Con

necticut

Valley

area.

Hudson-

Potomac

area.

agt;

�amp;

gt;

South

western

area.

S-i

r*�

.33

�p

-T3

.�*

quot;E

�3

bl)

�

0�

i-s

6 � u

�c

Podozamites lanceola t u s latifolius (Brongn.) Heer.nbsp;Podozamites longifolius

Podozamites taylorsvillen-

Podozamites tenuistriatus

Pseudodanseopsis obliqua

Pseudodanseopsis plana

....

Pterophyllum Daleanum

Pterophyllum i n se q u a 1 e

Pterophyllum ra j m a h a -

? :

. 1----

Sagenopteris Emmons!

Sagenopteris ? magnifoli-

Sagenopteris Nilsoniana (Brongn.) Ward n.

Schizolepis liaso-k e u p e r -

Schizoneura planicostata

Schizoneura virgin!eiisis

Sphenopteris egyptiaea

Sphenozamites Rogers!-

Tseniopteris orovillensis

Teeniopteris- vittata

Tceniopteris ? yorkensis

Thinnfeldia ? reticulata

Thyrsopteris Maakiana,

Undetermined stem

No.

In this table there are 189 separate entries. It would be too much to say that it represents that many distinct species, and j-et each entrynbsp;stands for a different form, so far as the nature of the material enablesnbsp;us to judge. Quite a number are early determinations that have notnbsp;been recently examined, some of them, perhaps, no longer representednbsp;by types that can now be found, and therefore they have little realnbsp;value, but having gone unchallenged into the literature, it seems bestnbsp;to keep them in view, in the hope that they maj^ some time receivenbsp;attention.

It will be observed that very few species are common to the Triassic and Jurassic as here recorded. Jiaiera multifida Font., of the Richmond coal field, is identified with doubts in the Oroville flora, andnbsp;Pagiophyllum Williaw-tsonis (Brongn.) Font., of the Yorkshire Oolite,nbsp;found at Oroville, also occurs in doubtful forms in the Trias of bothnbsp;Virginia and North Carolina. Sagemopteris Nilsoniana, a polymorphous species, which will doubtless be subdivided into several species,nbsp;was found in the Richmond and North Carolina coal fields and reappears in the Oroville florula.

Next in interest come the species common to the eastern and westei�n Triassic beds. Cheirolepis Mv�nsterl (Schenk) Schimp., found throughout the Newark system, occurs also in the Trias of New Mexico. Thenbsp;same is true of Ctenopliyll/wm grandifolium Font., common in the Virginia area, and found by Mr. iVanner in the Trias of York County,

Pennsylvania. The splendid variety, 0. grandifolium, StarrsU, ivom. Oroville, shows that this form only underwent certain modificationsnbsp;in passing from the Trias to the Jura, and its exclusively Americannbsp;character gives it great lvalue as an index to plant evolution on thisnbsp;continent in Older Mesozoic time.

As all the other columns of the table represent the Newark system, which is believed to constitute a geological tmit from Massachusettsnbsp;to North Carolina, little interest attaches to the discovery of formsnbsp;common to the several areas. A large number are found in both thenbsp;Richmond and the North Carolina coal fields, which was, of course, to benbsp;expected, and the rediscovery of the Emmons types has done much tonbsp;demonstrate the stratigraphical identity of these coalfields. Mr. Wan-ner�s excellent work in Pennsylvania has tended to bring- the depositsnbsp;of York County, Pennsjdvania, into substantial harmony with thosenbsp;farther south. The material from the Connecticut Vallejo and fromnbsp;New Jersey' is as yet too meager to make a full comparison possible,nbsp;and it seems altogether probable that, even on the assumption ofnbsp;identity of age and aside from differences due to geographical distribution, the element of climate ma}' have had some effect in causing thenbsp;northern and southern areas to differ in their flora in Mesozoic time.

PLATE XXI.

PLATE XXII.

FERNS FROM THE TRIAS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

PLATE XX III.

Fig. 1. Portion of specimen figured on PI. XXII, Fig. 9, enlarged to show the nerves.

MACROT/ENIOPTERIS MAGNIFOLIA, FROM THE TRIAS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

PLATE XXIV.

PLATE XXV.

PLATE XXVI.

.........'ii._ •. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.. ................ ‘w..’- nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;_ .’........

PLATE XXVll.

CTENOPHYLLU Wl G RAN D1 FOLI U M, FROM THE TRIAS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

PLATE XXVIII.

platp: XXIX.

ƒ■•“.'.

PLATE XXX.

PLATE XXXI.

Fig. 8. Portion of the stem of Fig. 6, enlarged to show the arrangement of the scales.

PLATE XXXII.

Figs. 1-5. Pamssya sphenolepis (Fr. Braun) Brongn . Fig. 4. Leaf of Fig. 1, enlarged 2 diameters.

PALISSYA SPHENOLEPIS, FROM THE TRIAS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

PLATE XXXIII.

PINACEOUS PLANTS FROM THE TRIAS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

PLATE XXXIV.

PLATE XXXV.

Fig. 1. Dendkophycus triassicus Newb., from the quarries of Portland, Connecticut......................................................... 228

DENDROPHYCUS SHOEMAKERl. FROM THE TRIAS OF MARYLAND

PLATE XXXVII.

Fig. 3. Radial section showing long medullary rays and W'ood cells with bordered pits. x90.

Fig. 4. Radial section. Wood cells with two rows of bordered pits nearly covering the wall. x310.

Fig. 5. Radial section. Wood cells with one and two rows of bordered pits. x310.

Fig. 9. Radial section showing short-celled medullary rays and wood cells with single rows of bordered pits. x90.

ARAUCARIOXYLON, FROM THE TRIAS OF NORTH CAROLINA,

PLATE XXXVIII.

PLATE XXXVni.

PLATE XXXIX.

PLATE XL

470

PLATE XLI.

472

platp: XL 11.

Fig. 6. Enlargement of portion of Fig. 5.

PLATE XLIII.

platp: xliv,

PLATE XLV.

PLATE XLVl

PAGIOPHYLLUM PEREGRINUM, FROM THE TRIAS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

PLATE XLVII.

PINACEOUS PLANTS AMD PLANTS OF UNCERTAIN AFFiNlTY, FROM THE TRIAS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

LEPACYCLOTES ELLIPTICUS, FROM THE TRIAS OF NORTH CAROLINA,

PLATE XLIX,

IRHS FROM THE JURASSIC OF OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA.

PLATE L.

, -.t;'- • . nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;uv

PLATE LI I.

FERK'S FROM THE JURASSIC OF OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA.

PLATE LIII.

Page.

PLATE LIV.

Page.

PLATE LV.

Fig. 3. Enlargement of portion of Fig. 2 (three times). Fig. 5. Enlargement of portion of Fig. 4.

PLATE LVI.

Fig. 7. Restoration of a portion of a leaflet to show nervation and mode of insertion.

’^.y. ■■quot; nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;gt;.:-.•

'.: nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;’ * */-* -'-ÏXr ' V’*

' ■- nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;•,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;- r c gt;.«-

PLATE LVII.

PLATE LVIII.

PLATE LIX.

-m0i .....

PLATE LX.

510

PLATE LX I.

' -V ,•■ v-gt;■ ■ yamp;yy’ '

PLATE LXII.

PLATE LXIII.

CYCADACEOUS PLANTS FROM THE JURASSIC OF OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA.

quot;, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;gt;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;~1 .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�iSSS��^�quot;^'-- �

� r : nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;� /��quot;�;,; *� v;quot;'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;?�.Ts;-*-';-/-**.�.'� ^^quot; �'t�-

� nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�../nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;- .'�� 'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'�quot;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;' V '�nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-'C^'.�V, '^,.

- 'v nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,'�nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-'. *��nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'�^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.#-nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;''nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;..nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�*^.4�nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.'�W

.'*-v nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;. .�Vnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;v.quot;

PLATE LX IV.

ponOZAMITES, FROM THE JURASSIC OF OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA.

PLATE LXV.

MISCELLANEOUS PLANTS FROM THE JURASSIC OF OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA.

PLATE LXVI.

PLATE LXVII.

PLATE LXVIII.

CENTIMETERS

PLATE LXIX.

View of the longitudinal fracture in the direction of the minor axis of the trunk.

528

PLATE LXX.

Fig. 3. Illustration of the relative great length of the chaffy liairs, which might be traced much farther. The one on the left is cut obliquely, showing the parallel cells.

Figs. 4, 5. Cross sections of the chaff, showing their flat, sharp-edged, multicellular character.

Note.�Figs. 1-3 were obtained from slides of No. 500.76 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming, and therefore belong to C. Knowltoniana. Figs. 4 and 5 arenbsp;from No. 500.39, and therefore belong to C. ramentosa.

PLATE LXXl.

View of the best-preserved side of No. 127 of the Yale collection, including the eccentric base.

CYCADELLA REEDII, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE LXXIl.

CYCADELLA REEDII, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING,

PLATE LXXIII.

PLATE LXXIV.

N�. 600.6 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming. Figs. 1 and 2. Views of the opposite broadest sides.

CYCADELLA REEDII, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

• ',■quot;■■■ r-T; . -'.i; ■-:' •..-, ■„- --wi-''- v■.-,*. .r .!, ■■ ,.,-|

. *-'''' ''gt;r. -.wV'^ ■

...........- nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;* ”nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'‘jT'*nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;■■nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;*' -nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ifcJ* *nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;«•^1.^’' *'**!''*«'*j I*

PLATE LXXV.

No. 500.19 of the Mirseuiu of the University of AVyoming. Fig. 1. View of the best-preserved side.

CYCADELLA REEDII, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE LXXVI,

Xo. 500.10 of the Museum of the IJiiiveraity of Wyoming. Figs. 1 and 2. A'iews of the opposite broadest sides.

centimeters

CYCADELLA REEDII, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE LXXVII.

Oycadella Beecheriana Ward...................-.....................- - nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;394

Fractured surface of No. 128 of the Yale collection (three upper pieces), and No. 500.54 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming (lowernbsp;piece).

PLATE LXXVIII.

Outer surface of No. 128 of the Yale collection (three upper pieces) and No. 500.54 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming (lower piece).nbsp;546

CYCADELLA BEECHERIANA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE LXXIX.

View of the best-preserved side of No. 500.8 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

ia-,- quot;-��'-- . ,, �-�iquot;quot; ;'-^r- nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ji^~.�^~---i--^-fiS^'',�:-.:f'^� ��

' * gt;:�?�/ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'V.*-'^quot;?.V-� �nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-V:j��'\ � V*?/''V .quot; X^

X ^ .V '� nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^ ^'^Vnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;fr-i* '�Ar'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'.^ ''nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;� 'f 'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;7; ' /nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;* � ,�s^xii

tv' '2., ^S'-'. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�'�^.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;, .^�'V '*gt;�' -� X

PLATE LXXX.

View of the base and somewhat fractured side of No. 500.3of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

PLATE LXXXl.

View of one of the sides of No. 500.14 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming, showing portions of the surface from which the outer coatnbsp;has been sealed off.

CYCAOELLA WYOM) N GENS IS, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE LXXXII.

View of the side of iSo. 500.14 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming, which is nearly all covered with the outer coat, but showing the terminalnbsp;bud near the summit.

/imm

PLATE LXXXIV.

View of the best-preserved side of No. 500.15 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA WYOMINGENSIS FROM THE JURASSIC Oh WYOMING,

PLATE LXXXV.

PLATE LXXXVI

PLATE L XXX VI.

View of one side of the segment of a trunk, No. 500.26 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA W YO M I NGENS IS, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

!?r �' nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;��'.�1^=- w -inbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�--'�. -:'-''-.,.wxnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;..�jafev �lt;(

PLATE LXXXVII.

View of the upper fractured surface of No. 500.26 of the Museum of the University of AVyoming.

C'El^TISTET'ERS

PLATE LXXXVIII.

View of the upper fractured surface of the segment of a trunk No. 500.20 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

566

CYCADELLA WYOM I NGENSIS, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE LXXXIX.

View of the lower fractured surface of the thin segment of a trunk No. 500.7 of the Museum of the Universit}' of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA W YO M I NGENS IS, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING,

PLATE XC.

Fig. 1. View of .the upper fractured surface of the thiu segment of a trunk No. 600.8 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

Fig. 2. View of one of the fractured surfaces of No. 500.52, supposed to belong to the same trunk as No. 500.8.

CYCADELLA WYOMINGENSIS, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE XCI.

Fig. 1. Side view showing the outer ramentaceous layer eompleteh' investing the trunk.

Fig. 2. View of the inner wall of the woody zone, showing seal's of the medullary rays.

PLATE XCn.

Fig. 1. View of the lower transverse fracture of No. 500.62 of the Museum of the University of quot;Wyoming, showing the leaf bases and walls in longitudinal section overlain by the outer coating.

Fig. 2. View of the polishelt;l surface of the (ijiper transverse fracture of No. 500.76, showing the attachment of the armor to the axis, the leaf basesnbsp;emitting the ramentaceous chaff to form the walls and outer layer.

CYCADELLA KNOWLTON I AN A, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE XCIII.

Fig. 1.'View of the uppei* transverse fracture before polishing. Fig. 2. View of the outer surface.

PLATE XCIV.

A^iew of au area of tlie polished transverse surface of the upper end of Jvo. 500.76 of the Aluseuin of the University of AA^yoining, taken from thenbsp;left side of the specimen and enlarged four diameters.

CYCADELLA KNOWLTONIANA

F I. A � E X C V.

View of an area of the i)olished transverse surface of tlie upper end of No. 500.76 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming, taken from thenbsp;right side of the specimen and enlarged four diameters.

CYCADELLA KNOWLTONIANA

PLATE XCVI.

CYCAOEULA COMPRESSA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;■;/;.■.■ ^■:u.4;4^.-.'':Vf-«V...---

' nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;t; . ■ .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;*•gt;?'.'• ■ '. *X'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;■ V , .''V^v'-nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;V .-'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;' ' '■'. V

4r gt; nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.•nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;;.,^gt;.r: ^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;• x‘'^T' '--«rVnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;?■'’nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;quot;

{ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'•'nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'quot;'S-'' ■ .'*^'’=:'^-nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;‘nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;■-'■'^ .nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-'•nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-■nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;■■■•.,■nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;.-'4, . quot;~Vnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-'*,' '!»-'■*nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;’gt;■, ',nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'J‘,

■; ■vf;‘v;v--.'‘’-l:^i.' nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;'x,.: r-i-;:'^.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;- rx ./..-i

.yi.'■■• •- -quot;.',';'^-Vf;.jgt; *•'-.'rJI;-'* ■. -*s-,y,v; ■■, ■•*'ï'-ï

PLATE XCVIl.

Fig. 1. View of the side and apex. The terminal hud is indistinctly seen on the left above.

PLATE XCVIII.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING

PLATE XCIX.

Sid� view of Xo. 500.5. of the Museuin of the University of Wyoming, side opjjosite that siiown on PI. XCVIII.

X %. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;fr-.. . ,gt;;- � ; -�� ,

.* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;��*��nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�*nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;V.-M ,41nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Inbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;- S.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Xnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;�-4nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;� -C

PLATE C.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE Cl.

Side view of Tvo. .�00..38 of tlie iNfusJeum of the University of Wyoming, side opposite that shown on PI. C.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE Oil.

PLATE CII.

{^YOADELLA .T�EASSICA Ward.............................-................. -'gt;99

View of the fractured inner face of Vo. 600.38 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE CIII.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE CIV.

View of the innei; fractured surface of No. 500.30 of the Museum of the University of W�yoming.

598

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE CV.

View of one side and the broken summit of No. 500.36 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE CVl.

View of the basal fracture and one side of No. 500.36 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE evil.

View of one side of the fragment restored by uniting tiie complementary Nos. 500.49 and 500.77 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.nbsp;{o' No. 500.49; (6) No. 500.77. .

PLATE CV III,

View of one side (the side opposite that shown on PI. CVII) of the fragment restored by uniting the complementary Nos. 500.49 and 500.77 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA. FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING,

PLATE CIX.

View of the inner fractured surface of No. 500.49 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA. FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING,

PLATE CX.

Views of the fragment restored i)y uniting the complementary Nos. 500.78 and 500.82 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming.

CYCADELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING,

,v ,.»

quot; nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;................ ,'’»: nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ï_t■^■w,

• ’ -'i ‘ ■•■; ■;■ :?quot;■ ■ '\f^-'i'gt;?;- nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;■' •■.•'-;?■■'.-■ quot; y *f;' ■.•-

.C nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;^ '^- -.'

.'lt; V. .' 'gt;C''•* •■;h':-'.

;:• .^iquot;‘;;.,^ %V: nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;...’r:'^ /„„ï-- --r- '-'Ï!^quot;-'’ '- ' ' v *nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;-.^

. quot;;V.-.;;4j.r'-''gt;?5^i^';.quot;';-vi.-’'?’' -^ïÏ- .■V.;'quot;Vy

PLATE CXr.

Views of the fragment Vo. 500.70 of the Museum of the T.'niversity of Wj�oming, supposed to form the apex of the trunk Nos. 500.78 andnbsp;500.82.

P L A T E C X T r.

�\o. 500.23 of the Museum of the University of Wyoming. Fig. 1. View of the flat top.

CYCAOELLA JURASSICA, FROM THE JURASSIC OF WYOMING.

PLATE CXIIT.