166 iMESO/OIC FLORAS OF IMTKI) STATFS. 



bases like those, and hnvv a diiTerent shape. One specimen which, in 

 my ()j)ini()n. lielongs to this species, Lesquereux determines as Zamites 

 alaskana Lx., a new species. This specimen, jjiven in his paper, pL x, 

 fig. 4, has, it is true, a .sinus at the base of the leaflets resembling that of 

 some Zamites, but it seems to be an accidental shape due to the rupture 

 of the lamina of the leaflet from the summit of the petlicel. Only the 

 lower part of this leaflet is preserved. It is widei- than mo.st of the leaflets 

 of this species, as in the part ])reserved it attains a width of 24 mm. It 

 may really be a fragment of Podozamitefi grand if oliiis Font. Most of 

 the leaflets of this plant are fragments, but one of the imprints, determined 

 by Lesquereux, is entire and lies near another that is nearly entire. 

 These are shown in Professor Lesquereaux's paper, pi. x\i, fig. 2. They 

 have a maximum width of IS mm., which is maintained to near the ba.se, 

 where it is narrowed rather abruptly and rounded off with an elliptical 

 shape. The entire leaf narrows gradually near its free end and terminates 

 in a lancet-shaped tip. It is 105 cm. long. The two leaves are slightly 

 curved and have a somewhat ensiform shape. The character seen in 

 these two seems to be found in all the leaflets, for they dift'er only in length 

 and in proportion of width to length. None show any portion of the 

 pedicel except one of the fragments among Mr. Schrader's specimens. 

 This is too poorly preserved to show more than the fact that it is a portion 

 of the pedicel. Fig. 3 of the same plate gives a portion of a leaflet occur- 

 ring on the same rock fragment that carries the leaflets given in fig. 2. 

 This shows very perfectly the terminal portion of the form. It seems to 

 be a leaflet somewhat shorter than the leaflets in fig. 2, but there is no 

 great difference in the length of any of the leaflets. I have identified 

 this plant with Podozamites distajdinems, a Lower Cretaceous fossil, but 

 it should be stated that, except in dimensions, the leaflets resemble some 

 forms of P. lanceolatus Eichwaldi (Schimp.) Heer and P. lanceolatus 

 latifolius (Fr. Br.) Heer" that Heer has described from the Jurassic of 

 Siberia. They may especialh' be compared with the figures given on 

 pi. xxvi. These are, however, decidedly smaller than the leaflets of the 

 Alaskan fossil, with the possible exception of fig. 6. This seems to be a 

 fragment of a large leaflet, which may not be P. lanceolatus latifolius 

 (Fr. Br.) Heer. 



" Fl I'"oss. Arct., Vol. IV, Pt. II (Beitriige zur Jura-FI. Ostsibiriens und d. Amurlandes), p. 109, pi. xxvi, 

 (ifrs. .5, (>, 8b, c. 



