1S77.J 4Ui [Lesquereux 



on the fossil flora of the coal. When I d'ilivered it, it was with the under- 

 standing that I should have the privilege of reviewing the manuscript 

 before it was delivered to the printer, or at least of correcting the galley- 

 proofs. But I heard nothing m >re about it, nor a word from Prof. Rogers ; 

 and thus I supposed that the publication of the report had been abandoned ; 

 wlieu I received, in 1838, a printed copy of the plates, with a note request- 

 ing me to correct them if I found it advisable, and slating that the report 

 was already definitely printed. Of course, as I had no copy of the manu- 

 script, nor any proof prints, I could not correct the plates, which are 

 moreover satisfactorily engraved. It is not necessary to saj" that if I could 

 have reviewed the memoir before its publication it would have been, if not 

 re-written entirely, at least grea ly m )dified ; f )r af.er some years of fur- 

 ther researches for specimens of coal plaats in the Pennsylvania anthracite 

 fields, I should have had some important corrections to make and a number 

 of interesting data as additions to it. For indeed its phraseology is very 

 poor, the descriptions incomplete, and some of tlie species incorrectly 

 named ; the orthography of the Latin names especially is abominable ; but 

 as it is the same for the nomenclature of Prof. Rogers, the printer is ac- 

 countable for the defect. Even on th.; subject of incorrect determinations 

 of species little has been criticised of the memoir by European authors, and 

 the continued examination of a great number of specimens up to this time 

 has confirmed them with few exceptions. Asteropht/llites ovalis and cras- 

 sicauUs are fruiting branches now rL^ferred by some b 'tunists lo Anri'ilar'ia, 

 by otliers to Sphenophyllum, by myself still to As^erophyUitea. The charac- 

 ters of these remains are now known by specimens as comple e as may be 

 obtained of petrified vegetable organisms; their relation is, however, not 

 determined upon, and is still in discussion amang European authors. 

 Alethopteris obneurtt, of which a mere fragment, seemingly far too incom- 

 plete for satisfactory determination, is I'epresented PI. I, was later dis- 

 covered at the same locality, in whole pinnae, which show the same charac- 

 ters and relation as marked in the first description. Cydopteris {Neurop- 

 teris) fimhriata has not only been found at diflferent places, especially in 

 Illinois, always representing the characters originally ascribed to it, but 

 even Prof. Heer, who, when the species was first published, considered it 

 as an imaginary or abnormal representation of leaves of ferns, has it now 

 from the anthracite measures of Switzerland, and has described two species 

 remarkably similar to or perhaps identical with it. The splendid Neurop- 

 teris Ro^ersli has been found again in many specimens, at the same and 

 only locality where it had been originally discovered, preserving its 

 identity of cliarac'.ers. Another specimen also has been obtained of the 

 queerly branching Sphsnopteris Neuoberryi, with the same peculiar forking 

 of its pinnae. And the Lepidodeniron species, though multiplied too far 

 according to Schimper, have been studied from an immense number of 

 specimens from the lower plant bearing strata of the whole extent of the 

 North American coal measures, and their specific characters have been 

 found persistent upcm large trunks and upon small branches, therefore wih 



