THK MARVLAM) CVCADS. . 409 



rpceived from Sir William Dawson in 1S97. 1 sent him my several papers 

 relating to cycads, and in his lettei' dated Api'il 19, 1S97, he wrote: 



1 am i;lml I hut yi)U iiic hriiii^iiij; out llic discox t'lies ol my old I'i'U'ud Ty.soii. 

 When in IJallimorc in 1S()S, now nearly .'^O years a^^). I went over some of his gronnd 

 with him, and saw sjx'cimeiis of his eycads and coniferons wotnl, collect in<,f some 

 of tlie lattei- on the clays. He asked me to write about them. l)nt T could not 

 then work at Mesozoic things, being entirely occupied with tlie Devonian lloras. 

 I knew, however, that Carruthers was cataloguing the Biitisli cycads in the Hritish 

 Musetim, so I sent Tyson some manusei'ipt notes on the coniferous wood, and sent 

 a photogi-aph of one of his cycads to Carruthers, which led to his making the note on 

 it A'oii have referred to. Tyson also gave me a s])ecimen for our College Museum, 

 which is still tliere. and Carruthers returned the ])hotogra|)h. which 1 still ha\'e. 



In replying to tliis letter, on May 14th. I said: 



I have seen it stated in one or two places that Tyson referred the cycad beds 

 of Marjdand to the Wealden. He does not do this in either of his reports as State 

 chemist of Maryland, published in 1S60 and 1862. One of the statements I have 

 seen was made by you in your paper ' 'On the Mesozoic Floras of the Rocky Moun- 

 tain Region of Canada" (Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, Vol. Ill, Sect. 4, 1SS.">, p. IS). 

 Can 3'ou inform me whether Tyson ever said this in print; and if .so, where? 



I did not know that you had one of the Maryland cycads. If you could send 

 me a photograph of it I presume I could name it from that. 



Sir William then sent me not only the trunk hut also the photograph 

 that he mentions in his letter, which is the same that he had sent to 

 Carruthers, and upon which the latter based the ''Postscript" at the 

 end of his memoir. In his letter dated May 19, 1897, he says: 



As to Tyson's cycad, it is a largish trunk, with coarse, large leaf bases, and 

 split down the middle to show the internal arrangements. I shall send you one- 

 half by parcel post or express. . . . The one I have a photograph of seems different 

 from the specimen I am to send. I shall send the photograph also. It is of inter- 

 est, as being the same I sent to CaiT\ithers. 



I fear I can give you no reference as to use of the name Wealden by Tyson. 

 I only remcmbei- that in going over the ground he habitually called the formation 

 Wealden. and that caused me to say it was supposed to be Wealden in writing to 

 Carruthers at)out it and perhaps in mentioning it elsewliere, though I do not recall 

 this now. If, however, I can refer to anything of Tyson's 1 shall mention it when I 

 send the specimen and photographs. At that time we had very little idea of the 

 successive floras of the Jurassic and Cretaceous, and the reference to the Wealden 

 on grounds of paleobotany could, therefore, be regarded as only general. But 



