292 
them as “ A new genus of a Cycas, of large dimensions, which will 
be described on another occasion.” In immediate connection with 
this he also mentions “ silicified coniferous wood,” and “ lignites 
(coniferous).” These he says were found in the “Iron Ore Clays 
(No. 22 in the illustrations),” and in the accompanying map he 
indicates the position of the Iron Ore Clays. The exact locality 
at which these trunks were found is not stated in Tyson’s report, 
but Professor Uhler in the Transactions of the Maryland Academy 
of Sciences for 1888 (1: 7-8) says that “ one specimen came from 
the iron ore beds of Mr. J. D. Latchford, near Muirkirk, a second 
from the vicinity of Hyattsville, and a third from similar clays 
next the shore of the Patapsco river at the Spring Gardens, south 
of Baltimore.” From information in his possession: Professor 
Uhler has also informed me of the discovery of apparently another 
specimen near Beltsville, on the property of Mr. Emack; also of a 
small fragment on the property of Dr. J. D. Jenkins, near Muir- 
kirk. Professor Uhler has also mentioned to me the occurrence = 
of still another specimen in the vicinity of Baltimore, which he 
was at the time negotiating for, but had not yet secured. These a 
facts seem to constitute all the information in the possession Obs 
the scientific world relative to the occurrence of cycadean trunks 
in the State of Maryland down to the year 1893. : 
The description promised by Tyson never appeared, but 3 ‘ 
photograph of one of these specimens was made by him and dis 
tributed to the leading geologists of this country and Europe; 
copy of which has recently come into my possession. Sif Wil- 
liam Dawson, to whom a photograph was sent, showed it to Me 
William Carruthers, who mentioned it in a postscript to his im- 
portant memoir “On Fossil Cycadean Stems from the Secondary 
Rocks of Britain,”* and says: “It is obviously a species of Beam” 
nettites, with smaller leaf-scars than those in B. Saxbyanus.” : 
In his Flora of the Potomac Formation,’+ Prof. Wm. M.- Pou 
taine describes four specimens, consisting of two trunks and tH? 35 
fragments. From what he says of the localities (pp- 188, 193) 
they are evidently the same that have already been mentione® 
although the precise language used in describing these localities — 
* Trans. Linn. Soc. 26: 708, 1870, — 
+ Monographs of the U. S, Geol. Survey, 15: 186-193, p/. cla xiv. Cheah ee 
