OF TAXODIUM DISTICHUM AND RELATED SPECIES 391 
Dr. Hollick* has reported its occurrence near Newark, N. Ji 
but is not certain that it is indigenous there. This locality is near 
the extreme northern limit of the Columbia formation, and about 
200 miles from any known area of the Lafayette. The occurrence 
of Z. distichum at this point therefore does not conflict with my 
theory. The Lafayette formation is also unknown in Delaware, 
which is the northernmost state in which 7. déstichum is undoubt- 
edly indigenous at the present time. 
Dr. Gattinger, in his Flora of Tennessee (pages 25 and 32 of 
the 1901 edition), mentions its occurrence along the Tennessee 
River, which, according to Dr. McGee’s map of the Lafayette and 
Columbia formations (plate 38 of his monograph above cited), has 
cut through the Lafayette and is now lined by deposits of Columbia 
throughout most of its course through the western part of the 
state. 
Dr. Mohr? says of the range of Zaxodium distichum in Ala- 
bama: ‘This tree is found throughout the State,” but this statement 
is probably to be taken with some qualification. Among the par- 
ticular localities mentioned by him is the Tennessee River; and 
although the Columbia formation is not known to extend up this 
river into Alabama, the Zaxodium might well do so, as it is not 
necessarily confined to this formation. 
The occurrence of 7. distichum in Knox county, Indiana, has 
been discussed by John S. Wright. In Garden and Forest (3: 
7. f. 2) for January 1, 1890, there is a good half-tone engraving 
of an Indiana cypress swamp. 
An interesting station for 7. distichum in Texas was discovered 
in 1894 by Mr. A. A. Heller, who collected it along the Guada- 
lupe River at Kerrville, at 1600 feet altitude.§ One of his speci- 
mens from this locality is in the Columbia University herbarium. 
Kerrville is beyond the known area of the Columbia formation, 
but it is noteworthy in this connection that this formation extends 
farther inland and higher above sea level along the rivers of Texas 
than anywhere else. According to Mr. Heller’s report, Kerrville 
* Ann. Rep. State Geol. N. J. 1899: 181. 1900, 
t Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. 6: 46. Igol. 
Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. 1897: 172-175. 1898. 
@ Cf. Contr. Herb. F. & M. Coll. r: 9. 1895. 
