DESCRIPTION OF SrECIES— CONIFERiE— ABIETINEiE 83 



number of specimens, all with the same characters; tliat Ahietites duhius can- 

 not be referable to Sequoia, on account of the rounded and not decurrent base 

 of the leaves, and that also AbietUes setiger, with its puncti(()rm scars of 

 leaves, is, like the other species, forcibly separated from Sequoia. 



Habitat. — Six miles above Spring Canon, near Fort Ellis (Dr. A. C. 

 Peak). The specimens from Fort Ellis, obtained by Mr. Savage, have no 

 fragments of Ihis species, but have some of Ahietites duhius. l\'r contra, 

 those collected by Dr. Peale have none of A. dubius, but have also dicoty- 

 ledonous leaves indiiferently preserved, among which Quercus Pealei, Lesqx., 

 Rhamnus acuminata, Web., and Gymnogramma Haydenii, are recognizable. 



PINUS, L. 



Pin us palseostrobus!, Ett 



Plate VII, Figs. 25,31. 



Pinites paloeostrohus, Ett., Foss. Fl. v. Hier., p. S.'i, pi. vi, figs. 22-33.— Ung., Icon., pi. xlii, figs. 16, 17. 

 rinua i>ala;ostrohm, Heer, Fl. Tert. Htlv., i, p. 50, pi. xxi, fig. 6.— Sap., fit., ii, p. 70, pi. iii, fig. 1, 

 iv, fig. 3 a.— Gaud., Cont., ii, p. 34, pi. i,tig. 8.— Heer, Mioc. Bait. Fl., p. 56, pi. xiii, figs. 1,2. 

 Pinus polaris, Lesqx., Auuual Report, 1873, p. 410 



Leaves by five, long, liuear-filiform. abruptly pointed; middle nerve thick; lateral veins thin 

 bnt distinct.' 



The first specimens obtained from this species were mere fragments 

 of leaves, like those of the enlarged figs. 26 to 30, and were, by their 

 narrow, filiform shape and their nervation, compared and referred to Finus 

 polaris, Heer, whose leaves are by two only, or of the Pinaster section of 

 the Pines. The specimen in fig. 25 shows these leaves to be by five, and 

 therefore of the section Strobus. The leaves are comparatively long, seven to 

 eight centimeters, about one millimeter broad, flat or canaliculate, abruptly 

 pointed, with a comparatively thick midrib, and two or three thin lateral veins 

 on each side. The support is not clearly defined, the leaves appearing sessile 

 upon a basilar receptacle, rather than surrounded by a sheath. Two of the 

 leaves seem larger and shorter, as seen in fig. 25. They are apparently flat- 

 tened fragments, do not show any trace of middle nerve and lateral veins, and 

 may have been crushed after maceration; this would indicate for the leaves of 

 this species a soft and at the same time a somewhat thick consistence. The 

 fragment of branch (fig. 31), with its rhomboidal scars, seen enlarged in figs. 

 31 « and 31 h, appears referable to this species, though fragments like this 

 may represent far different kinds of Conifers. One, for example, similar to 

 this, is figured as Glijptostrobus Europeus in Heer (Bait. Fl., pi. xiv, fig. 13). A 



