CONIFERALES. 99 



Hollick, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 11 : 58, 419, pi. j, /. 4, 

 5, pl- 36, f. 6, 1898; Bull. N. Y. Bot. Garden, vol. 2; 

 403, pl. 41, f. 13, 14, 1S92. 

 Protophyilocladits subintcgrifolius Berry, Bull. Torrey Cluli. vol. 

 30: 440, 1903 ; Ibid., vol. 31 : 69, pl. i, f. 5, 1904; Ann, 

 Rept. State Geol. (N. J.) for 1905; 139, 1906; Johns 

 Hopkins Uniiv. Circ. new ser., 1907, No. 7: 89-91, /. 6. 



Hollick, U. S. Geol. Surv. Mon. 50: 36, pl. 5, /. 1-6, 1907. 



Description. — Leaves oblong to linear in outline and coriaceous 

 in texture, from' 3 cm. to^ 17 cm. in length by 0.6 cm. to 3 cm. in 

 width. Apex usually obtuse, rarely pointed. Base decidedly and 

 narrowly cuneate to the short petiole. Margins entire below, 

 above obtusely dentate or undulate, with occasionally teeth which 

 are acute. Midrib stout below becoming attenuated above and 

 frequently disappearing some distance below the apex. Laterals 

 numerous, close, immersed; they branch at an angle of about 20°^ 

 running nearly straight and approximately parallel to the mar- 

 gin, sometimes forking. Stomata scattered on both surfaces,, 

 with typical guard cells. 



This is a widespread species ranging in considerable abun- 

 dance from Greenland to New Jersey and west to Kansas and 

 Nebraska. Originally referred to Phyllocladus by Lesquereux^ 

 his type is almost identical with certain phylloclads of modern 

 members of this genus. Subsequently discovered remains from 

 Kansas are considerably larger than the type, as are also' a num- 

 ber of the Greenland specimens. Some of the Raritan forms 

 have a somewhat different J.spect, being long and narrow; some- 

 times the margins are entire, often they are more or less sharply 

 toothed. 



Much controversy has centered around these forms and 

 especially around the older Mesozoic forms referred to the genus 

 Thinnfeldia Ettings., tO' which these later forms were once re- 

 ferred. The latter genus has been referred successively to the 

 conifers, ferns and cycads. There has never been much doubt 

 that the later forms were gymnospermous. The writer can posi- 

 tively affirm this conclusion, and also that they are true phyllo- 

 clads and not leaves in the strict morpholigical sense. 



