.irKASSIC FLORA OF DOFCiLAS COFXTY. OREG. 81 



viii, iiir. •>. 



1829. Scolopoidriinii s-i>li/(irlinii Pliill.: (Jcoloj^y ol' Yorkshin', |). 147, pi. 



1831. TifniiopUris ritfdiii liion.u'ii.: Hist. Voj;. Foss.. Vol. I, ]>. -'(i.;, pi. l.xx.xii. figs. 



1, 1.1, ■-• 4. 

 183(). Aspidit(S Ticniopttris (iripj).: Sy.-<t. Fil. Imi.-^s., p. 3.")0. 

 1843. Pterozamiles vittatun (Bron<,'ii.) Fr. Br. in Minister-; IJrilr. /.. I'divracten- 



Kinulc, Vol. IF Ild't Vi, p. 20. 

 1800. Olniihlndnnii vitUitniii (Rn)ii>;ii.) Schiinp.: Pal. Vi'^'-. Vol. 1, p. liOT. 



Numerous specimens of a narrow Tieniopteris were obtaiiHMl at 

 some of the Oregon Jurassic localities. They ag;ree very closely with 

 7'. riltdtd. and there is no doubt that they l)elong to this species. The 

 specimens in shape and size resemble a fjood deal the nari'owcr forms 

 of T. own'llcnsis, and when the lateral nerves are not visil)le can not 

 well be distinguished from that fossil. Unfortunately, in this case 

 also, as in that of T. nuijor. the leaf substance is so dense and the speci- 

 mens are so much polished b>' slickensides that it is generally difficult 

 to see them distinctly. 



This fossil is generally narrowly elliptical to linear ribbon-shaped, 

 narrowing gradually to the base and apex. Tlie midril) is propor- 

 tionally very strong, and is prolongetl into a long stipe, indicating that 

 the frond was simple. The lateral nerves are slender and rather remotely 

 placed. They go off at nearly or quite a right angle, and go parallel 

 to one another to the margin. They appear to be mostly simple, but 

 are sometimes forked. The forking, however, takes place in no regu- 

 lai' way and in no partictdar position, Init seems, as it were, accidental. 

 There is a considerable variation in the width and length of the leaves. 



With some doubt I unite with this species the form depicted in 

 PI. XIII, Fig. 0, found in only a single specimen. This differs from the 



made in the s^-nonyiny of this spccie.s in his Hist. Veg. Foss., Vol. I, p. 2fi3. Tlu! reference is probably to the 

 Frencli edition, a.s there are only 40 pai^es in fascicle 3 of the original (ierniun edition, 1823. On page 37 

 of that fascicle Sternberg mentions tlie plant figured in pi. x.x.xvii, fig. 2, and says: "Fig. 2 scheint eher ein 

 Blattstiick einer .Scitaniinea uls ein Farrenkraut zu seyn." He also states here that this specimen came from 

 Stone.sfield. On page 39 of the .same fascicle he enters the plant systematically under the general head ''Fili- 

 cites" as " Phjllites scUamineujorinis," referring to the same plate and figure. This name also occurs in the 

 index iconum. It does not occur elsewhere in the work, but is the only binomial apix-llation that lie applied 

 to the plant. If it were certain that this specimen from Stonosfield belonged to the same species as the York- 

 shire forms that Brongniart called Tmnio-pteris vitiata, the proper name for the species would be that of Stcrn- 

 berf , wliich antedates Brongniart 's name by five years. An examination of Sternberg's colored figure, liowever, 

 makes tliis doubtful. The character of tlie neri'ation is ob.scured by the effort to be artistic, and not eniaigh 

 (if the leaf is shown to be certain as to its shape. Certainly nothing .short of a comparison of the type specimen 

 could positively decide tlie <|uestion. This does not seem to have been done, and I therefore omit all reference 

 to it from the synonymy of Txniopteris vittata. — L. F. W. 

 MON XLVIII — 0.5 6 



