FLOKA OF 11 IF SHASTA FORMATION. 2:)9 



nari'owcr in jn'opoi-tion Id thcii' Iciij^th ;in(l loiiirci' tlinii those of ('. nuuj- 

 iiifiilid, and till' iu'r\(' is decidedly nioi'e sleiidei'. The most pei'fect 

 sjx'ciinen sliows a lenplh of tlie pai't al)o\'e the base to llie tei'iiiiiiatioti 

 of the leaflet that equals 21 mm. The base is not shown, hut the leaflet 

 was evidently considerably lon<i;er than the jjortion shown. Thv width 

 is greatest at the lower end of the leaflets, where they ecjiial \\ mm. It- 

 tapers very gradually to the end, near which it is less than 1 nun. in 

 width, and it ends in an .•icute tip. It is then cei'tainly not .Vhietites. 

 The tapering shows that it is not Pinus and not Lei)tostrol)Us. It is 

 most probably a new species of Cephalotax()])sis." 



(icims NAGFIOI'SIS Font Mine 

 Nagkiopsis i,oN(iiKoi.iA FuMtuiiie .^ 

 I'l. bXVllI, Fif^^s. !) I J. 



1889. Nageiop.sis /iiiK/ijolid l''(>iil.: Fotomac Floi'a (M(iiii><;r. U. S. (Jpol. Surv., Vol. 



XV), ]). ]'.)."). pi. Ixxv, fij;;s. 1, la, ih: pi. Ix.xvi, figs. 2-6; ))l. Ixxvii, figs. I, 2; 



pi. Ixxviii, figs. 1-.^; j)l. l.xxix, tig. 7; j)l. Ixxxv, fig.s. 1, 2. s, 'J. 

 1S94. Angioptiridlutii strldinerve Font.? in Diller & Stanton: Bull. Geoi. Sue. Am., 



Vol. V, p. 4.')(). (PI. LXVIII, Fig. 12.) 

 1894. Nageiopsis lomjifolia Font. ? in Dillor & .Stanton : Bull. ( icol. .Soc. Am., WA. V, 



p. 4.50. (PI. LXVIII, Figs. 9, 10, 11.) 

 1896. Angiopti'ridium sfrictiiierre Font. 'i n Stanton: liuii. F. S. (icol. .Smv., Mo. \-i:i, 



p. 1.5. (PI. LXVIII, Fig. 12.) 

 1895 [IS96]. NagfiopsisIongifoJia Font. ? in Stanton : Bull. (icol. Stirw. .Xo. l.'v^.p. 1.5. 



(PI. LXVIII, Figs. 9," 10. 11.) 



The presence of Nageiup^ia lonyij'olia I'onl. in the flora of the Shasta 

 formation can not be positively determined from the specimens found. 



" Till' aljove is l'r<)fi'.s.sc)r Fontuine's uriginal description given in his first report, dated Feljruarv 2:i, 1S94, 

 which v/SLS sent to Mr. Diller and Dr. Stanton at that time. The species was named Cephalolaxopsis sp.,' and 

 only this name was publislied in their paper. In his final re[)ort on the combined collections this specimen was 

 returned among those referred to Ci'phiilotaxopsis ramomi Voni.'i and was drawn lus such, but the drawing 

 brought out the fact, which .seems to liave been overlooked, that, nidike the other specimens, fine transverse 

 wrinkles or strife pa.ss from the midrib to the margin the whole length of the leaf. I therefore hesitated to 

 include it among the figures of T. raniom ?, and took tlie pains to return the specimen, accompanied liy the draw- 

 ing, to I*rofe.ss()r Fontaine and ask him how he would interpret tliis feature. In his reply dated .Iu!y :51 , 11)02, 

 he says : 



"1 have examined tlic specimen carefully with a lens. The trans\crsc lines are dislinci under I lie lens, hut 

 are of unequal strength and have no definite plan. I think they are shrinkage wrinkles formed on » thick leaf, 

 and that the plant is most probably a Cephalotaxopsis, possibly a new s[)ccies." 



It seems best to regard it as a new .species and consider the generic attribution doublfu . Tlic specific name 

 chosen is intended to refer to tlie wrinkled appearance, while not positively implying thai l)ic iippcnraiicc is due 

 to wrinkling. The .specimen was colleitcd at locality No. 9. — L. F. W. 



