KNowLTON] DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 53 



Locdh'ty. — Van Horn's ranch. South P'ork of John Day River, a))out 

 12 miles west of Mount Vernon, Grant County, Oregon. Collected 

 by Maj. Charles PI Bendire (U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 8504). 



QuERCUS? sp. Knowlton. 



PI. VIII, %. 3. 



QuERCus? sp., Knowlton in Merriani, Univ. Cal., Bull. Dej)t. Geol., Vol. II, No. 9, 

 p. 308, 1901. 



The collection made by the University of California contains a single 

 leaf — the one ligured — which appears to belong to Quercus. Only the 

 basal portion is preserved together with a very short, thick petiole. 

 The texture seems to have been coriaceous; the shape is lanceolate, 

 wedge-shaped at base, and entire margined. The midrib is very thick 

 and the secondaries — -several pairs — subopposite. None of the finer 

 nervation is retained. 



This may possibly be a fragment of Quercus simplex Newb., which 

 is so abundant at Bridge Creek, but it is only a fragment and the ner- 

 vation is not well preserved, so I have hesitated to so regard it. 



Locality. — Van Horn's ranch, about 12 miles west of Mount Vernon, 

 Grant County, Oregon. Collected by Merriam's expedition of 1900. 

 (Mus. Univ. Cal., No. 860.) 



Family ULMACE^E. 



Ulmus speciosa Newb. 



Ulmus speciosa Newb., Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, p. 507, 1883; Later Extinct 



Floras, p. 80, PI. XLV, figs. 2-4, 7 (non figs. 5 and 8), 1898. 

 Ulmus ■pseiido-americana Lesq., Cret. and Tert. Fl., p. 249, PI. LIV, fig. 10, 1883. 



The leaf made the type of Lesquereux's Uhjius 2)seudo-ame'ricana 

 is preserved in the paleontological collection of the University of 

 California (No. 1758), and as it is clearly the same as the large leaves 

 figured as the types of Newberry's U. Hjjeciosa and is referred to it, as 

 the latter has priority. 



As Newberry states, the collections from Bridge Creek contain a 

 number of elm leaves of the character and size shown in fig. 8 of his 

 plate; that is, they are very much smaller and have less coarsely cut 

 margins than those shown in figs. 2-4, and 7. He decides, however, 

 that these differences are not sufficient to warrant separating them as 

 a distinct species. If these extremes of size and shape were connected 

 by intermediate forms it would be unwarranted to separate them, but 

 among a considerable number this is not found to be the case. It is 

 possilile to determine from even a relatively small fragment the form 

 in hand. It therefore seems justifiable to separate them, and I have 

 accordingly done so, retaining the name xpeelom. for the larger leaves 

 and giving to the smaller ones the name of Ulmus J^ewherryi. 



