492 :mes()Z()U' fi.oras of FXITKD STATKS. 



An riiiii.iTiiEs" GArnir.M-Ros.E \V;inl. 



Professor Ward has fully noticed'' this peculiar ])laiil, wliich is con- 

 fined 1o the Mount \'ernon localily. one specimen heinj; found on the 

 date of its discovery, October 16, 1892. Better specimens, including the 

 fomi figured l)y Professor ^^'ar(i, were obtained at the next visit to the 

 locality, on Xovembei- 6 of that year. The plant is rare, as only three 

 specimens occur in the collections. He was fortunate in finding so good 

 an imprint as that figured. 



Aralia ? VERNONEXsis Foiitaine n. sp. 



PI. CVII, Fig. 6. 

 The Mount Vernon locality has yielded a single small leaf that seems 

 to be a new species of Aralia. It is digitately divided into three lobes, 

 which, measured across their sunmiit. do not exceed 12 mm. The leaf is 

 entire with the exception of the extreme l)ase and petiole, which are 

 missing. The length of the portion preserved is only 15 mm. It is 

 hence a veiy small form. Of the nervation nothing can be made out 

 except the midnerve, which divides as in Aralia into three branches, one 

 for each lobe. The plant must have been extremely rare in this flora 

 and its true position can not be positively made out. The specimen 

 was collected Xoveml)er 6, 1892. 



Aristolociii-epiivllum ^ CELLULARE Ward n. sp. 

 Pi. CVIII, Fig. .5. 

 A very peculiar leaf was ol^tained on November 6, 1892, from the 

 Mount Vernon locality, consisting of two specimens broken up into 

 numerous small fragments. The largest is that depicted in PL CVIII, 

 Fig. 5. None of the fragments suffice to give any idea of the size and 

 shape of the leaf. It was apparently a large leaf of thick, fleshy texture. 

 It was probal)ly rounded in form. The impressions show on their surface 



" At the time (1894) my paper on the Potomac formation was written I supposed that the proper orthog- 

 raphy of this genus wa-s Antliohtlius, but thorough investigations since made have not been successful (as 

 they were in the case of Carpolithus) in finding its use by any of the old autliors. So far as at present 

 known its first use was that of Brongniart in his "Classification" (Mem. Mus. Hist. Nat. de Paris, Vol. 

 VIII, 1822, pp. 210, .320), where he writes it Antholithes. It is true that Brongniart here credits the name 

 to Schlotheim, but the latter emploj-ed the longer name Antbotypolithcs, and only fm- ii rorm that he does 

 not really describe and does not figure. It is also true that on p. 210 Brongniart treats his Antholithes as 

 an order; still, on p. 238, be calls it a genus, and he names one species (.1. liliacea), which he figures on pi. 

 xiv [iii], fig. 7, and which nnisl remain as the type of the genus. — L. F. W. 



''Op. cit., pp. 3.54, 3.>5, pi. iii, fig. 7. 



