FLORA OF THE WOOPBIXF. SAXn AT ARTHURS BLUFF, TKX. 



157 



Woodbini" may not also rcpn-^i'iil tlu' Kaglc 

 Ford. Such a conclusion would he in accord 

 xvith the evidence of the fossil j)lants. 



The flora of the Bingen sand is known oidy 

 from a small collection made by H. D. Miser 

 in Pike and Howard counties, Ark.' It com- 

 prises but 27 named forms, and these are not 

 all from one level: hence comparisons between 

 it and that of the Woodbine are limited. In 

 spite of this the Woodbine contains nine species 

 that are common to the Bingen sand, including 

 the Dnralquea, which is common in the upper 

 Bingen and is confined to these two formations. 



The upper Bingen was considered by me as 

 the e(iuivalent of the upper part of the Tusca- 

 loosa and the Eutaw formation of the eastern 

 Gulf area, and the lower Bingen as the equiva- 

 lent of the lower Tuscaloosa and the Raritan 

 formation. 



Unfortunately for ease of correlation and in- 

 telligible discussion all the I'pper Cretaceous 

 formations of the Coastal Plain have been based 

 up^mlithologic differences instead of upon their 

 contained famias and floras, iuid as they over- 

 lap iuid inlergrade laterally the limits of the 

 same formation are not chronologically equiva- 

 lent from locality to locality, so that precision 

 in correlation must await the discover}- and 

 study of much more extensive paleontologic 

 materials than are available at the present 

 time. 



Although the Bingen has been separated by 

 Miser into upper and lower members, the known 

 flora was found near the top of the lower mem- 

 ber and near the base of the upper member 

 and hence could not be expected to be as deci- 

 sive as if it represented both earlier and later 

 Bingen time. The present Woodbine flora 

 comes from a single horizon and locahty, and 

 what the other 300 to oOO feet of the Woodbine 

 would show if the flora were knowTi in its 

 entirety can only be surmised. Hence, inas- 

 much as names must be used m any discussion, 

 it must be borne in mind that when I speak of 

 the W<K)dbine flora or W(K)dbine sand my data 

 are derived entirely from the single liorizon 

 represented at Arthurs Bluff on Red River. I 

 can therefore only state the well-known fact 

 that the Woodbine and Bingen formations arc 

 at least partly contemporaneous. I am of the 

 opinion, which is based on the range of the 



' Berry, E. W., Torrey Bot. Club Bull., vol. 44. pp. lf.7-l'J0, pi. 7, 1917. 



W(H>dbine plants in other fornuilions. tliat 

 Arthurs Hlufl" is approximately on the bound- 

 ary between the lower and upper members of 

 the Bingen as rect>gnized by Miser in Arkansas 

 in the specific area where he collected tlie fossil 

 phmts. 



Relation to TuKcaJonmt flora. — The flora of 

 the Tusctdoosii formation is extensive, com- 

 prising 151 describeil species, recently mono- 

 graphed.'" The Tuscaloosa occupies the same 

 stratigraphic position with respect to the Eutaw 

 formation of the eastern Clulf area that the 

 Woodbine tloes with respect to the Eagle Ford 

 formation of the western (lulf area, and both 

 the Eutaw and the Eagle Ford contain com- 

 parable marine faunal elements. The Tusca- 

 loosa formation has been shown to be progres- 

 sively younger when traced northward from 

 western central Alabama, and in the report 

 just cited 1 have showni its delta character and 

 probable clu'onologic equivalence with a part of 

 the marine Eutaw formation. 



I suspect that the Woodbine might also be 

 uiterpreted as made up of continental, delta, 

 and marginal deposits, with sinxilar relations to 

 the marine Eagle Ford, but I have no basis for 

 this inference except the writings of others. 

 This would afford an excellent subject for field 

 study. The Woodbine and Tuscaloosa floras 

 have 22 species in conunon, so that it seems 

 clear that the Woodbine and Tuscaloosa for- 

 mations are equivalent, at least in part. 

 Whether the Tuscaloosa elements that are con- 

 spicuously absent in the Woodbine represent 

 real or only apparent differences can not be 

 determined. I incline to the opinion that these 

 differences are ordy apparent. 



Relation to floras! of other formations of the 

 Coastal Plain. — The relation or degree of resem- 

 blance between the Woodbine flora and that of 

 geographictdly more remote formations of the 

 Atlantic Coastal Plain is well shown in the 

 accompanying table of distribution. The 

 Woodbine contains 20 species common to the 

 Raritan, IS common to the Magothy of the 

 New Jersey-Maryland region, and 2.5 common 

 to the two combined, thus emphasizing a well- 

 known floral similarity seen throughout the 

 Coastal Plain. This ma}- mean that the Wood- 

 bine is equivalent to the upper Raritan and the 

 Magothy, or simply that it is equivalent to the 



" Berry, K. W., U. S. tipol. Survey Prof. Paper in. 1919. 



