146 BERRY— LOWER EOCENE FLORA OF [Aprii ^s, 



as epiphytes with the possible exception of Lycopodites? eolignitica 

 which is such a rare and poorly represented form that it is without 

 significance. Apparently epiphytes were not conspicuous in the Wil- 

 cox coastal floras so that this possible source of supply for additional 

 fern species is also eliminated. 



The Gymnospermae so conspicuous in Alesozoic floras are rela- 

 tively unimportant in the Wilcox flora, a feature due to their gen- 

 eral unimportance in Cenozoic floras and to their intolerance of the 

 habitats and climatic conditions indicated by the tout ensemble of 

 the Wilcox flora. All of the five Wilcox gymnospemis are referred 

 to the relatively modern family Pinacese and none of the genera are 

 especially close to Mesozoic types. The Cycadacese which might be 

 expected to be represented by Zauiia-Vikt forms have not been found 

 although the presence of typical WiUiamsonia fructifications in the 

 Upper Cretaceous of the coastal plain indicates that the Cycad phy- 

 lum had not been long extinct in this area. 



The Angiospermge, beyond all odds the dominant type in existing 

 floras, was as clearly dominant in Wilcox time since to it belong over 

 94 per cent, of the known Wilcox flora. Of these numerous angio- 

 sperms only seven are referable to the Monocotyledonse. It is true 

 the number of monocotyledons might have been increased by describ- 

 ing the various sedge or grass-like fragments that are not uncommon 

 at certain localities. None of these have, however, been dignified by 

 names except a single form each of Poacites and Cypcritcs which 

 were only retained since they were already in the literature. That 

 only three species of palms have been recognized is remarkable 

 siince palms were well differentiated at this time and various genera 

 such as Phocnicites, Thrinax, Geonoma, Bactrites, Manicaria, etc., are 

 recognized in our later Tertiaries. In the contemporaneous deposits 

 of Sheppey of the 30 monocotyledons enumerated by Ettingshausen 

 (op. cit., p. 393) 22 species are palms. On the other hand the Alum 

 Bay flora contemporaneous and not far distant from the Sheppey de- 

 posits furnished only 6 monocotyledons. This contrast indicates that 

 the fruits accumulated at Sheppey in the delta of an Eocene river 

 system contain interior fonns not present in the coastal region repre- 

 sented by the Alum Bay clays and that inland from the Wilcox coast 

 the display of monocotyledons suitable to the Wilcox environmental 

 conditions flourished but failed of preservation. 



