54 MKSOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 



Leekenby lias (lescril)O(l from the Bcarlwroujili Oolites, as Fucoides 

 eredits," a sinjjiilai' plant that resembles one found in a single specimen 

 at locality Xo. IS. Owintj; to the small amouni of material, this can not 

 be certainly identified with Leckenby's fossil. Seward has given Leck- 

 enby's plant the name Mdrclutntites erevlusj' The Oregon fossil shows 

 only the imprint, no plant mutter l)eing preserved. It is composed of a 

 rather flexnous stem, apparently once cylindrical in form, that sends off 

 oblifjuely and sparingly shoi't stout Ijranches that have obtuse ends. The 

 branches maintain their width to their ends and are nearly as strong as 

 the axis from which the>' are sent off. In the main stem, if it can be 

 called such, and in each l)ranch, there is a single flexuous nerve cjuite dis- 

 tinctly shown. (Jn the stem and branches there is a vague reticulation 

 on each side of the midnerve, which appears to be caused by depressed 

 areas. In tlie center of the depressed areas there is apparently a small 

 prominence, possibly due to a sorus. Leekenby describes his plant as 

 having a midnerve in each branch, on each side of which there is a fructi- 

 fication composed of one or more rows of ovate ^•esicles immersed in the 

 frond. The mode of branching of the Oregon fossil differs from that of 

 Leekenby in l)eing not so palmate. It is similar to that of Brachyphyllum 

 and the plant may be realh' a twig of that conifer. 



P»liyliiiii FTERIDOfHYT^ (P^erns and Fern 



Allies)/ 



Order FILICALES. 



Ferns. — Fems arc not rare at some of the localities and they show 

 a decided difference in distribution, for in some places they are almost 

 entirely wanting, being most deficient where the cycad remains are most 



F. erectus, the combination should have, by the rules of nomenclature, the earlier specific name. In his dis- 

 cussion, however, on the next page, after examining both the types, he says that "the specimen to which 

 Lindley and Hutton applied the latter name was much more imperfect than Leckenby's type, and it is-not 

 certain, though highly probable, that the two are specifically identical." 



I have not thought best, therefore, to change the combination, but the only logical way to escape from 

 the didiculty is to omit the doubtful name entirely from the synonymy, whii^h I have done. — L. F. W. 



"On the sandstones and .shales of the Oolites of Scarborough, etc.. by .Tohii Tji'iUi'ti1>v; Quart. .Tourn. 

 Geol. Soc. London, Vol. XX, 18(54, p. 31, pi. xi, figs. Sa, 3b. 



'' In his Yorkshire Klora. HKK), he rede.scribes the species on p. 49 and reproduces on p. .")0, lig. 2, the ligiire 

 cited from his Kossil I'lants in the above synonymy, which is from Bean's type specimen in the Woodwardian 

 Museum represented by I^'ckenby in his fig. 3a. He finds, however, in the British Mu.seum of Natural His- 

 tory" at South Kensington another specimen (No. V. 3652) which he figures on pi. xix, fig. 2, of his Yorkshire 

 Flora (seep. 51).— L. F. W. 



''See footnote to Br>-ophyta, p. .53. 



