458 MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 



a nearly illegihlo laltcl indicating that it had been taken for a coral. It 

 is somewhat triangular in shape, but shows four faces. Two of these 

 are fresh breaks. A third is an old radial fracture and shows one fruit 

 very clearly. The fourth side is extei-nal and, though deeply worn, 

 shows scars characteristic of C. BiJ)hiiisi of the type of W. C., B., Xo. 

 14S0. One of the fresh fractures shows the lower end of a reproductive 

 organ with radiate structure. The measurements of the fragment are: 

 Tangential length, 9 cm. ; width (probably nearly vertical) 6 cm. ; radial 

 thickness, 5 cm. The remainder will be described under the principal 

 figures. 



PI. LXXXIII, Fig. 3, and PI. LXXXIV, Fig. 3, are two views of 

 the external surface of the Johns Hopkins University cycad Xo. 4, the 

 first in the group photographed by Mr. Tyson of which he sent a print 

 to Mr. Meek, the history of whose discovery is given in the historical 

 part of this paper (p. 414), and the second in the group photographed 

 by the United States Geological Survey on May 11, 1895. When I 

 descrilDed this specimen on January 9, 1895, there were in the geological 

 museum of Johns Hopkins University two large trunks (X^os. 1 and 2) 

 and two fragments. As Professor Fontaine had treated two trunks and 

 two fragments before they left the museiun of the Maryland Academy 

 of Sciences, and as these had since been donated to Johns Hopkins 

 University, I naturally supposed that the ones I found there were the 

 same. As Professor Fontaine had figured the trunks, there was no diffi- 

 culty in identifying them. I also correctly identified one of the fragments 

 I found with his description of the one he called "Fragment Xo. 2" on 

 p. 192 of his monograph (see p. 457). As this was much the larger 

 of the two I found, I called it and still call it "Johns Hopkins cycads, 

 No. 3."" The other one, which is the one now under consideration, 

 I called "X"o. 4," and supposed that it was the one that Professor 

 Fontaine had called "Fragment No. 1." I could not make it agree with 

 his description and passed it over without comment. When the third 

 fragment came to light, a few months later, I also descrilied that and 

 had the three photographed in this group (PI. LXXXIV), but I did not 

 then compare them with Professor Fontaine's descriptions, and still 

 supposed in 1897, when my descriptive paper was written, that this third 



"See Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, Vol. XI, p. 11. 



