244 MKSOZOIC FLORAS OF UN1TP:L) STATKS. 



1S44. /*/< H'/'/i »///)/;/( Ihinkiriiinitin Gn])p.; I'dxTsichl d. Arhritcii d. Sclilcs. (ios. f. 



Vatcil. Kultiir, 1S4:5, p. i:H. 

 lS4fi. Plo-ophijlluii, Dunkrrianum GOpp. Dunkcr: MoTiotrr. d. Xonldcutsch. 



Wt-aldonhilduiig, p. 14, ])1. ii, figs. 3, 3a, h: pi. vi. fii:. 4. 

 1S46. Cifcadifes Morrisiaiius ]hu\k.: Op. fit., j). Ki. pi. vii, iij:. 1. 

 1849. Zainites Dunlenanus (Giipp.) Brongn.: Taliloau, pp. (>-', 107. 

 1851. DiootutcsDirnlrndnu.t (Gopp.) Mi(i. : Tijdschr. v. d. Wis-en Natuik.Wctensch., 



Deel IV. p. L'lJ [s]. 

 1894. DioonUes Dunl-erianus (Gu])]).) Mitj. Font, in Dillcr & Stanton; Bidl. Geol. 



Soc. Am.. Vol. V, p. 4r)(). 



Several specimens of a plant were found at locality Xo. I that agree 

 exactly with the plant from the Glen Rose V)eds of Texas," which the 

 writer identified with Dioonites Dunkerianus (Gopp.) Miq. of the Wealden 

 of Hanover. The specimens show fragments of leaves, with portions of 

 leaflets attached to the midrib, and also fragmentary detached leaflets. 

 The midril), as is shown in the fragment depicted in Fig. 15, is, as in the 

 Glen Rose plant, quite strong and rigid. The leaflets, as is the case with 

 the Texas fossil, are thick and rigid, with dense epidermis, and show no 

 nerves distinctly. From crumpling longitudinally they sometimes exhibit 

 what reseml^les a strong nerve, which on casual inspection might be taken 

 for tlie single nerve of a Cycadites. There can lie, no question that this 

 plant belongs to the same species as that from Texas, whether that is 

 /). Dunkerianus or not. 



Dioonites Buciiianus (Ettingshausen) Bornemann.'' 

 PI. LXVI, Figs. 16, 17. 



1852. Ptcnipli III hint Buchiiitiiiiii Ktt.: Ahh. d. k. k. Geol. Reichsanst., Vol I, Abth. 



Ill, No. 2, p. 21, pi. i, fig. 1. 

 1856. '( Dioordtes Bitchiduus (Ett.) Born.: Org. Rest. d. Lettenkohlengruppe 



Thiiringens, p. 57. 



specific nninc would have to 1)0 restored Imd not .Minuel in 1801 (Prodronui.s .systematic Cv.cadeamm, p. 31") 

 referred the ()oliti<' species called CijciuHhx perlni hy Phillips to the genus Dioonites, making the combination 

 Dioonites jwcirn (Pliill.) Miq. The next oldest name is that of Gi'ippert, 1S44. and it happens that Micpiel i.s 

 also responsible for this combination. L. F. W. 



"Notes on some fossil plants from the Trinity division of the ('i>rnanchc> series of Texas: I'roi'. U.S. 

 Nat. Mus., Vol. XVI, p. 26.5, pi. xxxvi, fig. 12; pi. xxxvii, fig. 1. 



'' I have hesitated long before deciding to retain this combination in view of all that Nathoi-st (Deukschr. 

 Wien Akad., Vol. LVII, p. 4()) and .Seward (Wealden Flora, Ft. II, pp. T.'iir) have said against placing this 

 species in Mifjuel's genus Dioonites, the former creating for it the genus Zamiophyllum, and the latter referring 

 it to Zamites. But Professor Fontaine argues the case for himself. It is true that Boiiiemann referred F.I lings- 



