of amber. Goeppert and Menge (1883) and Conwentz 
(1890) illustrated only a few pollen grains in their mono- 
graphic systematic studies. Kirchheimer (1937) obtained 
pollen by grinding the amber into small grains, dissolv- 
ing these in alcohol and centrifuging the material. Un- 
fortunately, he did not identify the pollen obtained in 
this manner. He reported that angiosperm pollen was 
distributed in amber and he intended to discuss this sub- 
Ject further in a subsequent paper. Wetzel (1953)reported 
pollen and fern spores in amber from Schleswig- Holstein. 
As it was impossible to dissolve completely this amber 
to tree the pollen and spores, preparations for microscopic 
study of the microflora were made of small amber parti- 
cles remaining from partial solution of the material in a 
mixture of alcohol and xylol. The most abundant spores 
found are members of the Poly podiaceae ; the most com- 
mon pollen is Sequova and a form closely related to Quer- 
cus. There are also specimens that are possibly Pseudot- 
suga, Tsuga, as well as a member of the Ericaceae and 
another of the Compositae. Schubert (1961) pointed out 
that pollen apparently was not found in thousands of 
pieces of amber in the collections of the University of 
KoOnisberg, nor in his own specimens containing wood 
and bark. He suggested that this absence might be a 
result of these collections consisting primarily of ‘‘brack”’ 
amber. *‘Brack”™’ is a refuse grade and, although it may 
contain numerous inclusions, such as wood and bark, it 
is not the best type of amber in which to observe pollen. 
Schubert, therefore, indicated that it might be possible 
to find pollen in especially clear grades, e.g. **Schlauben, 
using the lackfilmmethode (Voigt, 1986), a technique 
which frees inclusions from the amber matrix. It also 
seems probable that a considerable accumulation of pol- 
len and spores might be located in the outer crust of the 
amber. This crust unfortunately has generally been re- 
r 
[ 248 | 
