620 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



served. This is universally the case, — the tracheides being too narrow 

 to accommodate a double series; in no case was the preservation suffi- 

 ciently^ good to make out the bars of Sanio. Tangential pitting also 

 is present, rather infrequently, on the face of the summer wood. 



The rays are of two sorts, — linear and fusiform. Their highly 

 resinous condition obscures the pitting, which in favorable localities is 

 seen to be piciform. The pores are one to each crossfield, circular on 

 the wall of the tracheide, and elliptical on that of the ray. In no case 

 was there evidence of pit fusion. 



The section photographed for Figure/, Plate 3, was cut at the region 

 of the exit of a brachyblast. Figure e, Plate 4, shows its structure in 

 cross section. The enlargement is the same as that of Figure c, which 

 represents Finns 'proiosderopiiys. In the case of both, the short 

 shoots are much larger than those of living pines, and in the medulla 

 of each, there are aggregations of sclerified tissue similar to that of the 

 main axis. 



The affinities of this specimen are rather difficult to determine. 

 The presence of short shoots and the absence of wood parenchyma 

 relegate it definitely to Pinus. Further it is impossible to go, for it 

 has the characteristics of neither a hard nor a soft pine exclusivel}^, — 

 the presence of tangential pitting and single row of resin canals excludes 

 the former, and the presence of stone cells excludes the latter. As 

 regards other fossil forms, its affinities are equally indefinite. It lacks 

 the ray tracheides of Pinus scituatensiformis, P. succinifera or P. 

 protosclerapitys, and the tracheary tyloses and toothed ray parenchyma 

 of Pinites Ruffordi; unlike Protopiceoxylon antiquius and Pinus 

 Nathorsti, there is tangential pitting. On the other hand, Pityoxylon 

 statenense has no sclerenchyma in the pith, and P. foliosum has 

 abundant leaf traces. Granted that Prepinus really belongs with 

 Leptostrobus this cannot be the wood of Prepinus, because it has no 

 primary leaves. In other characteristics, its general resemblance to 

 Prepinus is quite striking. The woods look alike, — both have stone 

 cells in the pith, resinous rays, piciform ray pitting, — further both 

 have numerous small crystals, — a feature of neither of the other 

 specimens. 



In view of these apparent points of difference from other forms, it is 

 suggested that this fossil be called Pityoxylon anomalum. 



