583 
attention to the similarity in appearance between the rhizomes of - 
Tripsacum dactyloides L.. and the fossil organisms known under the 
generic name of Caudinites Ad. Brong. 
Recently Dr. Ward sent to me the rhizomes upon which he 
based his conclusions, with the suggestion that I make drawings 
of them and reproductions of some figures of Cau/inites, for closer 
comparison, and prepare a brief article on the subject. 
Authorities have differed in opinion regarding the probable 
affinities of this genus. Desmarest, who was the first to figure 
and name a specimen referable to it (Nouv. Bull. Soc. Phil. Sci. 
Nat. 2: 272. pl. 11, f. g. 1811.)* supposed the specimen to be a 
polyp and called it Amphitoites Parisiensis, under which name it 
was reproduced by Cuvier and Alexander Brongniart. (Essai 
Géog. Minéral Envir. Paris, in Mem. Inst. Imp. France, Cl: Sci. 
Math. et Phys. 1810. Part 1. 165. p/. 2, figs. ro A, 10 B. 1811.) 
Desmarest subsequently decided that it belonged in the vegetable 
kingdom and compared it with Zostera. (Ann. Sci. Nat. Paris. 1: 
334. 1824.) Adolph Brongniart likewise recognized the botani- 
cal characters of similar organisms under the generic name of 
Culmites. (Descr. Géol. Envir. Paris, 359. 1828.)* He also com- 
pared Amphitoites with Caulinia DC. (Posidonta Kon.) and renamed 
the genus Caulinites, placing it under the Naiadaceae. (Prod, 
Hist. Vég. Foss. 115. 1828.) In this view he was followed in 
part by other authorities and finally the several described species 
of Culmites and Caulinites were apportioned among a number of 
different genera and families. Heer considered similar organisms 
to belong with the grasses, placing them under the genera Arundo 
L. and Phragmites Trin. (Fl. Tert. Helvet. 1: 62, 64. 1855.) while 
Lesquereux described and figured specimens from Clear Lake, Cali- 
fornia, under the name Cawulinites Beckeri (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 
10: 36. pl. 1, f.3; 2, figs. 2-4. 1887), placing them with the 
Naiadaceae. In connection with this description, however, is a 
footnote, consisting, in part, of a letter from the collector, Mr. G, 
F. Becker, suggesting that they are probably silicified fragments _ 
of “Tule” (Scirpus lacustris L.), which grows abundantly on the 
borders of the lake. 
* These two references I have not been able to verify personally, I am in- 
debted to Mr. David White, of the United States Geological — for assistance in 
this connection. i 
