130 MESOZOIC IXOKAS OF UNITED STATES. 



Ucuus BRAGHYPIIYLLl-M Brungniait. 



Bkaciiyphyllum mamillare Brongiiiart. 



PI. XXXV, Figs. 4-8. 



182S. Brachyplu/Iium momUlare Brongn.: Prodroiiie, pp. 109, 200." 

 1829. Thuites expansus ? Steriib. Phillips: Geology of Yorkshire, pp. 153, 167, 190, 

 pi. X, fig. 11." 



1835. Thuites expansus Sternb. Lindlej' & Huttoii: Foss. Fl. Gt. Brit., Vol. Ill, 



p. 49, pi. clxvii. 



1836. Brachi/phyllum mammiUare Brongn. Lindley & Hutton; Oj). cit.. Vol. Ill, 



p. 99, pi. clxxxviii. 



1837. BrachypliyUum mammUlare Bz-ongii. Lindley & Hitttoii: Op. <'it., "N'ol. Ill, 



p. 177, pi. ccxix. 

 1870. BrachypTiyUum Phillipsii Schinip.: Pal. Veg., Vol. II, p. 336.'' 



Several specimens of a plant that seems to jje identical with 

 BrachypliyUum viamillare Brongn. were oljtained in the Oregon Jurassic. 

 The plant is very rare and only small fragments of stems are nsiially 

 found. These are poorly preserved and the leaves are generally distorted 

 by pressure. 



The specimen given in PI. XXXV, Fig. 4 is a part of a branch about 

 12 mm. wide and 6 cm. long ^fat has the leaves of this character. A 

 small portion of it is shown enlarged in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows a small 

 fragment of a brancli with crowded leaves. This is shown enlarged in 

 Fig. 7. Fig. 8 denotes a larger fragment that is of somewhat doubtful 

 character. It is 9 cm. long and 2 cm. wide. It is an imprint made by 

 a decorticated stem. It shows, irregularly placed and remote from 

 one another, a number of obscure rhombic scars, and occasionally one 

 that is elongate-elliptical, placed transverse to the axis of the stem. 

 They can be seen distinctly only with the help of a lens. These scars 



" Brongniart never described or figured this species, but it is on page 109 of the Prodrome that he describes 

 the genus BrachypliyUum, and places in it only this one species. This has proved sufficient to enable others 

 to identify it, and is c()uivaU'nt to a description of the species, Brongniart, however, |)repan'd drawings of the 

 plant, which were afterwards completed and puliHslicd by Saporta (Plantes Jurassicpies, Vol. Ill, p. 32S, 

 pi. clxii [xxxiv], figs. 3-7).— L. V. W. 



'' The true Thuites expansu/! of Sternberg (Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. I, fasc. 3, p. 39, Tentamen, p. XXXVIII, 

 pi. xxxviii, figs. 1,2) from the Stonesfield slate does not seem to occur in the Yorkshire Oolite, but both Phillips 

 and Ijindlcy and llutton wrongly referred some of the Yorkshire forms to that species. — L. F. W. 



'■ Schiniper considered the form figured by Lindley and Hutton in tl>e Foss. Fl. Gt. Brit., Vol. Ill, pi. ccxix 

 as a distinct species, and .Saporta's fresh drawings of Brongniart 's plant were regarded as establishing this fact. 

 He states that both the figures of Lindley and Hutton arc of the same specimen, but Mr. Seward, who foimd the 

 specimen in the Manchester Museum, docs not mention this.an<l the figures do not make it certain. Saporta 

 says that .Schiiiiiwr was in error, and .Mr. Seward includes this form in Brongniart species. — L. F. W. 



