116 MESOZOIC FLORAS OF LMTFL) STATES. 



a common midi'il). It is not certain that these belong to the plant in 

 question. If they do they belong to the upper part of a leaf. 



The plant is not common. It is most ai)un(lant at locality No. 7. 

 Several specimens were found at locality' Xo. 2. 



Ctenis grandifolia Fontaine 

 PI. XXVIII, Fio:s. L>-8. 



1896. Ctenis grandifalhi Font.: Am. .Toiiiii. Sci., 4th ser., \'iil. II, ]>. 274 (nonicii.). 

 1900. Ctemis grandifoUa Font.: Twentieth Ann. Rej). V. S. (ieol. Surv.. 1S9S-99, 

 Pt. II, p. ."^54, pi. hii, fig. 2; ph Ivi, figs. B, 7: pi. Ivii. 



Several specimens of a plant much like Ctenis (jrdndifolia were 

 obtained from the Oroville localities. This plant was foimd in the 

 Oroville flora. The Oregon specimens do not add anything to the 

 character made out from the Oroville plants. They are much too dis- 

 torted and mutilated. Only fragments were found. From these neither 

 the shape nor the size of the leaflets can be determined. The attach- 

 ment seems to have lieen liy the whole of a somewhat ex])anded l)ase, 

 which in one specimen seems to ])v deciu'rent, but this is probably due 

 to distortion. The leaflets in the Oregon specimens apparently some- 

 times had great width, equaling 5 cm. The narrowest had near the 

 base a width of about 25 mm. The nerves are cjuite remote, strong, 

 and sharply distinct, Imt they are immersed in the leaf sulistance. They 

 are approximately parallel and anastoniose rather freely at long inter- 

 vals, in the same manner as those of Ctenis orerviUensis. 



PI. XXVIII, Fig. 2, shows the most complete specimen, but it is 

 greatly distorted. A portion of the midrib remains, and to this the 

 three leaflets still preserved were formerly attached. But the attached 

 parts are not now visible. The leaflets indicate a width of 5 cm. They 

 are doubled upon themselves along the middle line of their length, 

 owing to being crushed clown into the rock. Fig. 3 gives the l)asal 

 part of a fragment of a wide leaflet, showing nerves rather vaguely. 

 A small portion of this is shown enlarged in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 represents 

 a fragment of the narrowest form of leaflet with the ])ase preserved 

 and showing the mode of attachment, but probably distorted so as to 

 cause an apparent decvuTence. I*'ig. (> shows the basal portion of this 



