480 BERRY: LIRIODENDRON CELAKOVSKII VELEN. 
Celakovskii considerably in both size and outline, except for the 
unnotched apex ; the secondaries are more nearly straight, however, 
and there are no additional veins below the lateral primaries. 
Comparing Liriodendron Celakovskii with the existing Lério- 
dendron Tulipifera we note that, while the outline is not dissimilar 
from numerous ZL. 7x/ipifera leaves in my possession, the wide peti- 
ole enlarged at the base is widely different. The venation is 
decidedly different from any form of Liriodendron, living or extinct, 
which I have seen. It is most decidedly palmate, three veins 
‘which may be called primaries and two lateral secondaries branch- 
ing from the summit of the petiole at the extreme base of the leaf 
blade. The primaries are straight and the lateral ones run 
directly to the tips of the obtuse lateral lobes. In L. Zudipifera what 
‘answers to these primaries are seldom straight, do not form such 
an acute angle with the midrib, and in 99 per cent. of the leaves 
examined do not run directly to the tips of the lobes, but branch 
.and become more or less obliterated. 
The disposition of the tertiary system in the region of the sinus 
is different ; in L. Tulipifera a secondary generally runs toward the 
sinus, forking and striding it. 
In L. Tulipifera the secondaries are more numerous and branch 
from the midrib at approximately regular intervals, nor do they 
ascend in sweeping curves as in L. Celakovskit. : 
The base in Z. Tu/ipifera is not straight, but usually decurrent 9 
the smaller leaves, and more or less obcordate in the larger. It 
would not be difficult to find additional analogues of the leafin lca 
tion, and while the writer's knowledge is far to limited to assign La 
dendron Celakovskii to its proper place, it would seem to be i! 
nearly related to that somewhat heterogeneous assemblage includ 
in Cissites. At least this seems to accord more nearly with its ye 
ral affinity than its reference to Liriodendron, and we May i 
in conclusion that it is not related to Liriodendron, which 8 the 
point of emphasis in the foregoing note. 
Passaic, N. J. 
