52 CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY, 1913. 



separaKMl by intenncdialt' vciiilots, very (listiiul. " I have oxaiiiiiicd these sperimeiis. which 



are preserved in tlic United States National Museum, and find them huHsthitruishahle from tlie 



Collier specimens, <>x(('pt in si/.e. Tlio specimtnis of " Irites alashina," with additional examples 



colleclecl at the same locality by II. 1). Dimiars in ISDO, were studied by Fontaine and 



referred to Xagcinpsix longifoVia Fontaine, a veiy a])ui\dant form in the Patuxent formation of 



Vir<iiiiia and ilarvlaml. It has lonfj b(>en my ojtinion. and in liiis I am supported by E. W. 



Berry.' that these specimens from Cape l.isburne have absolutely nolliing to do with Najjeiopsis 



nor of coui-se with Irites. They liave Ix'cn compared carefully with the tjqje aiul typical nnite- 



rial of Nageiopsis longifolia Fontaine, and they are not the same. It is believed that they are 



not even congeneric .- 



I am also refei-i-ing to Zamites megaphyUus the specimens that Ijcsquereux ' referred to 



Baiera palmata Ilcer and that Fontaine later referred with (juestion to Podozamites grandifolius 



Fontaine. Both these authors fell into the error of regarding these leaves bottom side up — ■ 



that is, as nuiy be seen on referraig to Lesquereux"s figure 4, the part figured as the base is in 



reality tiie apex. Fontaine,' in speaking of these specimens, expressed d(iul)t as to their 



afhnity but linally rc^ferred them to his Podozamites gmndifoHufi, which is now |)laced under 



Cteitopsis htt'ifoJia (Fontaine) Berry, ° a rather rare species of the Patuxent formation of Mi-ginia. 



Although these leaflets are if anything even larger than the Collier specimens here figured, 



thev do not difTer othiMwise. at least so far as can be matle out from their somewhat fragmentary 



condition. 



Phcenicopsis speciosa Heer. 



Plato VIII. figures 2-1. 



Phwnicopm speciosa Heer. Flora fcssilis ar(ti<a. vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 112. PI. XIX. figs. 1, 2; PI. XXX. fig.s. 1-6. ISTfi. 



There are several examples in the Collier collections tliat clearly belong to Phan'tcopsis 

 speciosa as described and figured l)v Heer from Annnland. Three of these have been figured, 

 the one shown in Plate VIII, figure 2, bemg the most perfect. Another (PI. VIII, fig. 3) is 

 a detached Irallet or segment 11 centimeters ui length and nearly 1 centimeter in width, which 

 is hidistinguishable from the sjjecimen shown in Ileer's Plate XXX, figure o. A])parently this 

 very characteristic species has not j)re\ iously been rectJrded from Xt)rth .Vmerica. 



Phcenicopsis angustifolia Heer. 



Phnenicopsis angustifolia Heer, Flora fot^silis arctica, vol. 4. pt. 2. pp. bl. IIH. PI. 1. fig. Id; PI. II. fig. 3b; 1876. 



The Collier collection contains s(>veral fragments that appear certauily to belong to Phani- 

 copsis angustifolm . Whether this s]>ecies Is really dlstuict or Ls referable to P. speciosa, as 

 Seward " sugg(>sts, must be left to the future to determme. The present specimens are to be 

 identified witli P. angustifolia but throw no light on the (piestion of their identity willi P. speciosa. 



Podozamites lanceolatus (Lindley and llutton) Fr. Braun. 



Podozamites lanccolatus ( Liiulley and Ifuttoii) Fr. Braun (non Knimons), V('rzi'i(hnis.s dor in dor Kreis-Naturalien- 

 Sammlung zu Bayrculli befindlichen Petrolacteii. p. 100. It<40; Hoor. Flora h)s.sili.s arotica. vol. 4, pt. 1, p. 3.5, 

 PI. VII. figs. 1-7,1876; idem, pt. 2, p. 106, IM .\.\ 1 1 1, figs. k-.4a-c; PI X.XVI. ligs. 2-11); PL XX VII. figs. 1-8, 1876. 



The typical form of this variable type is rejiresenled by only a few fragments of rather 

 large leaves that are too poor to ligui'e. 



' Maryland Geol. .Surve.v. Lower Cretaceous, p. 383, 19U. 



* Since the above was WTJtlen Ilamshaw Thoiuas hjis published a short pap(?r (Some now and rare Jura.ssic plants from Yorkshire: Cambridge 

 Philos. Soe. Proc., vol. 17, pp. 2.'>t>-262, Pis. VI, VII, iyi:i) in which hehiLsdescriliedanewtj-peofginkgodian leaf under the name EretmophyUura. 

 In dLscu.ssing the relatioiLship of this new form Thomas suggests the possibility that these specimens, referred by Fontaine to Xagehpsui longihtia, 

 may really Im referable to his Eretmophyllum. Continuing, he .says: "Fontaine's nguro h might po.ssibly bo an Eretmophyllum leaf figured 

 upside down, anil the shape of the other fragments, thin distant veins almost parallel but sometimes forking, present.s. some points of similarity.'* 

 A comparison of tbi'siMH-imons studied by Fontaine, as well as the Collier specimens hero figured, shows that this suggest ion is not witliont weight. 

 This may account for the fact that the leaves or leaflets are always isolated, and further they may have boon improjHirly oriented. Uowevcr, 

 until further proof is forthcoming, it seems as well to leave them under Zamites. 



" U's.|uereu-\, Leo, C. S. Nat. Mus. Proc., vol. 11, PI. XVI, figs. I, .i, p. 31, 18S.S. 



« Fontaine, W. M., U. S. (iool. Survey Mon. 4.s, p. 167, lOtt). 



^ Berry, E. W., Maryland (ieol. Survey, Lower Cretaceous, p. 34i), 1011. 



•Seward, A. C. Jurassic plants from Amurland; Com. gtfol. Mc'm., new ser., pt. si, p. 21. 1912. 



