138 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PAL^ONTOLOGY 



Family ARISTOLOCHIACE^ 



Genus ARISTOLOCHITES Heer 



Aristolochites brittoni (Knowlton) Dorf, n. tomb. 



(Plate 10, Fig. 1) 



Aristolochia bTiltoni Knowlton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 696, 96, 1919; U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 130, 140, pl. 

 23, figs. 3-5, 1922. Dorf, BuU. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 51, 218, 222, 225, 1940. 



There are 2 fairly complete specimens in the collections which are indistinguishable in essen- 

 tial details from the figured and type specimens of this species, known previously only from the 

 Laramie formation. 



After consulting several hundred genera of Uving forras, one has little doubt, as Knowlton 

 has already stated, as to the close similarity between these fossil leaves and those of several existing 

 species of Aristolochia. Knowlton has pointed out the resemblance to A. clematis Linn6 and 

 A. hirta Linne of the Old World and to the American A. tomentosa Sims. I have noted also an 

 agreement in essential details with the leaves of A. gigantea M. and Z., at the New York Botanical 

 Garden.' In the absence of positive proof of generic idqntity, however, it seems advisable to 

 refer this species to Aristolochites, implying family relationship to the modern Aristolochiaceae. 



Occurrence — Locahty P3854. 



Collection—V . C. Mus. Pal., Plesiotype No. 2507. 



Family LAURACEiE 



Genus LAUROPHYLLUM Goeppert 



Laurophyllum eoloradensis (Knowlton) Dorf, n. comb. 



(Plate 9, Fig. 2) 



Anona cnhradensis Knowlton, U. S. Geol. Surv. BuU. 696, 78, 1919; U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 130, 143, pl. 



18, fig. 4, 1922. 

 Laurus socialis Lesquereux. Knowlton, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 155, 85, pl. 38, fig. 4, 1930. Dorf, 



Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. No. 508, pt. I, 61, pl. 7, fig. 4, 1938; BuU. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 51, 218, 222, 



225, 1940. 



There is a single nearly complete specimen and several fragmentary impressions which are 

 indistinguishable from the type and figured specimens listed above. In the discussion of this 

 leaf form in the Mediciue Bow flora, I stated tliat the incomplete specimens were "referred with 

 doubt" to Laurus socialis. It was noted that in the type specimens of that species "the shape is 

 more lanceolate and the secondaries are more numerous, more obtuse, and less prominently looped 

 near the borders." With the more complete material now at hand in the Lance collections, it is 

 certain that these well-defined leaves are not referabie to Laurus socialis. Thc type specimen of 

 Anona coloradensis from the Laramie formation is, on the other hand, more cloarly defiued than 

 its reproduction implies, and is not distinguishable from the Dawson and Medicine Bow specimens 

 which were alleged to be Laurus socialis. The specimen previouslj' idcntified as Juglans leconteana 

 Lesquereux - comes from the same locality as tiie specimcn of Laurophyllum coloradcnsis here 

 figured and is not now regarded as sufficiently distinct to warrant separation from the latter 

 species. 



In his description of Ano7ia coloradensis, Knowlton noted a re.semblance to the living Anona 

 palmeri Safford of Mcxico, but observed that there were usually fewer secondaries in the fossil 

 specimens. After consulting the leaves of all available spccies of Anona at the New York Botani- 

 cal Garden, I ara convinced that this comparison is ratlier remote. As was pointed out in my 

 Medicine Bow report,' these fossil specimens resemble more closely such lauraceous genera as 

 Persea and Laurus. It has thcrefore secmed more advisablc to refer these forms to the genus 

 Laurophyllum, indicating a similarity to the leaves of the Lauracese. 



Occurrcnce— Localities P385-1, P3855, P3858. 



Collection—V. C. Mus. Pal., Plesiotype No. 2508. 



> Sheet No. 19982— Vicinity of Machado Portello, Bahia. Brazil. 

 ' Dorr, E., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amcr.. vol. 51, 218, 222, 225, 1940. 

 • Dorf, E.. Carncgie Inat. Waah. Pub. No. 508, pt. I, 61, 1938. 



