KNOwi.ToN.] DESCKIPTIOJM OF Sl'KCIES. 45 



QuEKCUs AFFiNis (Newb.) n. coinl). 



Frcutinnx dUbm Newlj., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, p. 510, 1883; I>ater Extinct 



Floras, p. 127, Vol. XLIX, fig. 5, 1898 (1899). 

 QuercHs fiircmerviit Ropsm. Les(]uoreux, Crot. and Tort. Fl., p. 244, PI. LIII, fiujs. 10- 



12, 1883. 

 Querent Breveri Les(|., idoni, i>. 24(>, I'l. LIV, i\g. i) (not other figun-n described as 



Q. Breweri) 1883. 



This species canu' first into the liands of Dr. NcAvhorry and was called 

 bv him Fra.i'inuK <(jfin!i<. He appears to have noticed oidy a siiij^de 

 example, namely, the one made the type, yet there is a larger leaf on 

 the same piece of matrix. A little later a jumiber of similar leaves 

 from the same locality were studied by Lesquercux and by him identi- 

 fied with Qwrcdxfurehiervis of Rossmassler, and his own Q. Bi'eweri 

 (See synonymy above). 



As Newberry well states, there is a strong reseml)lance between his 

 leaf and the living Fraxinus ainericana, yet in })lacing it h}' the side 

 of the figures given ])y Lesquereux there can be no doubt that only 

 one species is represented, and moreover that this is much more like 

 Quercus than Fraxinus. This view is further strengthened b}' the 

 finding of additional leaves in later collections. It is therefore clear 

 to my mind that they are oak leaves, and I have placed them under 

 Quercus. 



It now remains to explain the selection of the specific name for these 

 leaves. Newberry's Ff'a,el)ius afinis v/as published March 21, 1883, 

 whereas Lesquereux's volume, as pointed out on page 12, could not 

 have been issued until late in 1883 or more probably not until some- 

 time in 188-1. Newberry, therefore, clearly has prioritv. Now, if 

 either of Lesquereux\s references of these leaves to species of Quercus 

 was valid, it would simply be necessary to transfer Fraxin us affinis 

 to the one selected, but in m}- opinion they are not. I do not think 

 that the leaves referred to Quercus furcinervis^'' are the same as Ross- 

 massler's species, and, obviously, the leaf called Quercus Breweri^ is 

 not the same as the others with which it is associated, and is identi- 

 cal with the one on the preceding plate. On these grounds I have 

 retained Newberry's specific name because it is the oldest, and I have 

 placed them under Quercus because I consider them to be oak leaves. 



Locality. — Bridge Creek, Grant County, Oregon. Collected by 

 Rev. Thomas Condon (U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 7125). Type of tig. 9, 

 op. cit, is in Mus. Univ. Cal., No. 177-1. 



Quercus consimilis Newb. 



Quercus consimiliis Newb., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, p. 505, 1883; Later Extinct 

 Floras, p. 71, PI. XLIII, figs. 2-5, 7-10, 1898. 



This species is very al)iuidant in the collections from Bridge Creek, 

 and is well characterized and figured by Newberry. It is closely allied 



<t Lesquereux, Cret and Tert. Fl., PI. LIII, hgs. 10-12. 

 ft Idem, PL LIV, fig. 9. 



