PLANTS FROM ALASKA. 171 



known leaveo of Ginkgo (ligitaUi. They closely resemble a large Ginkgo 

 leaf found in the Jurassic (Lower Oolite) flora of Douglas County, Oreg. 

 This form has been described by me as G. Hnttoni magnifolia (supra, 

 p. 171). The leaves now in question resem])le the Oregon plant in their 

 great size, in the irregular width of the tlivisions of the leaf, in the remote- 

 ness of the nerves, and in their great strength. The size of some of 

 these Alaskan leaves makes it improbable that they belong to G. digitata. 

 One of the fragments, which has nuich of the summit of the leaf 

 missing, is still 5 cm. long, while a spread of 7 cm. is shown on one very 

 imperfect specimen. The nerves of these are more remote than those 

 of G. (ligitata and much stronger. 



PI. XLIV, Fig. 7, gives a fragment of one of these leaves which 

 is apparently divided into only two very wide lobes. But even this is 

 not certainly an original partition of the leaf. It has much the appear- 

 ance of an accidental division. Some idea of the size of the leaf may 

 be oljtained from it. Another specimen is given in Fig. 8. In this the 

 divisions are clearly accidental. In it a portion of a stout petiole is 

 shown. As, however, the material is very imperfect, the true place of 

 the forms can not l)e positively determined. 



Order FINALES. 



Family TAXACE.E. 

 Genus NAGEIOPSIS Fontaine. 

 Nageiop.sis LONGiFoLiA Foiitaiue. 

 PI. XLV, Figs. 1-.5. 



1887. Irites alasTcana Lx.: Proc. U. S. Nat. Miis., Vol. X, p. 36." 



1888. Baiera palmata Heer. Lesquereux: Op. cit.. Vol. XL p. 31 in part, quoad 



Cat. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 2437, Lesquereux's No. gil.'' 



"The four specimens thus named by Professor Lesquereu.x were collected bv Mr. Woolfe but were either 

 received in advance of the main collection or otherwise became separated from it and were sent to Lesquereux 

 and described by him a year earlier than the re.st. They were overlooked in sending the collections to Professor 

 Fontaine and not included in his report. They were subsequently sent to him, and in his letter dated March 

 17. lt)02,he says of them: '"The specimens sent last do not call for any modification of my report, as they are 

 all Xageiopsis Uintj'ifolin." The best specimei\ is shown in PI. XLV, Fig. h. — L. F. W. 



'' .\lthougli Professor Fontaine .says that Lesquereux did not mention the specimens of this species in Mr 

 Woolfe's collection, nevertheless he labeled the one having Lesquereux's No. 911 -Vayoo/wis Innijifolia. This 

 was one of tho.se that Lescjuercux referred to Bdiera jmhnaUi Heer. It is here represented in PI. XLV, Fig. 2. — 

 L. F. W 



