FLORA OF TlIF SHASTA FORMATION. 219 



font ains .'50 specimens. Nineteen of tiieni show not liiiii: lliatcan be even a|)])i()xi- 

 uiately detennined. Most of these have vague imprints of stems. The remaining 

 s|)ecimens contain fragments of i(>aves that give some hint of their character, but 

 none of them can l)e [xisitively determined. 



1. .\ fragment of a rather hirge leaf, sliowing no principal nerve' The iier\a- 

 tion. whicii is poorly preserved, is all e(|iially strong and sliows an anastomosis that 

 may be either that of Sagenopteris or J'role;epli\llum. It looks more like a Prote.e- 

 |)h\ilum. 



2. Four of the sj)ecimens liave each a small fragment of an ultimate pinna of 

 some fern. Th(>y may be of the same species, but the pirumles of one are longer and 

 proportionally narrower than those of the others. Xo nervation is shown and the 

 j)reservation is too im|)(>rfect to admit of even giMieric determination. Tiiey look 

 like Gleichenia, or a small Dicksonia. Gleirlwiiia (/nicills Ile(>r is not unlike these 

 fossils. This (ileiclKMiia is found in both the Koine and the .\tane beds of (ireeidand. 



.'-). Four specimens contain each a small fragment of the ultimate pimia of the 

 type of Thyrnoptcris rarinfrvis or Aspleniuin Dickuditlnniun lleer. They are too 

 poorly preserved to make out their true character. 



4. Three of the specimens show each a small fragment of the ultimate pimia of a 

 fern that has the api)earance of a small Cladophlebis. None of them show more than 

 a few j)oorly preser\-ed |)innules. They agree pretty well with PferLs Alhertsii 

 (Dunk.) Ileer of the Atane beds of fJreenland, but may equally as well be one of the 

 Cladophlebis of the Lower Potomac. 



.5. One specimen contains a fragment of a detached leaf that, in form and size, 

 agrees well with Naf/eiopsiN lonffifolia Font, of the Lower Potomac. As, however, 

 the base, tip. and nervation are not shown, it is impossible to determine its character. 



6. Another specimen .shows a similarly imperfect fragment of what may be 

 Nagciopsis heterophylJd Font. At least it is a smaller leaf of the same type as the one 

 last mentioned. 



7. Still another fragment of the same tyi)e of leaf agrees best with Nageiopsis 

 angustifoJia Font. None of these suffice to give more than hints. 



8. One specimen shows a fragment, about 1.') mm. wide, of a larger leaf of the 

 same general character as the preccnling. It may be a large Nagciopsis or Podozam- 

 ites. Its shape and size are not shown. The nerves are parallel. unl)raiiched, 

 strong, and apparently double. 



9. One specimen shows three detached rigid leaves of some conifer that agrees 

 w-(>ll with Sequoia rigida Heer of the Greenland Atane beds. The fragments, how- 

 ever, are not sufficient to permit identification with that plant. 



10. Another fragment maj' be a NUsonia or Ta?niopteris. It has neither biise 

 nor tip. A pretty strong midrib is present. The lateral nerves are ob.scure. but 

 seem to be those of one or the other of these two genera. 



If the plant ilescribed first is not a Proteiephylliun. this collection has no 

 dicotyledon. 



