but not described systematically, provides 70% of the 
aquatic inclusions reported by Kirchner (1950). He fur- 
ther offered this alga as an indication of swamp vegeta- 
tion, although the evidence does not seem conclusive. 
Some of the marine organisms included in the amber are 
part of a starfish, a young fish, a polychaete, some mus- 
sels and several corals, as well as various kinds of plank- 
ton. These remains suggest either that the trees were 
depositing resin directly into the water or, in some cases, 
that pieces of wood containing liquid resin were floated 
into sites where aquatic organisms could be picked up. 
Explanations for the concentration of the amber found 
in the Baltic deposits have not been entirely satisfactory. 
It is evident from the discussion of other amber deposits 
throughout the world that particularly favorable condi- 
tions must have existed, not only for resin production 
but also for its preservation and accumulation. Amber 
is not of common occurrence under any circumstances, 
but the Baltic deposit is the only one known to have 
reached such an extraordinary extent. Conwentz (1890) 
was so overwhelmed with the quantity preserved that he 
assumed that the resin had to be produced by unhealthy 
forest conditions—‘‘Es gab kaum einen gesunden Baum 
in ganzen Bernsteinwald—das pathologische war die 
Regel, da Normale die Ausnahme!’’ He even felt the 
necessity of using a special term for the excessive pro- 
duction of resin, calling it ‘‘succinosis.’’ He tried to 
enumerate all the possible sources of injury that would 
increase flow of resin, such as violent storms, forest fires, 
swarms of insects, activities of birds, squirrels, fungi and 
other parasitic plants. Activity of hurricanes, tornados 
and thunderstorms(and consequently lightning-produced 
fires) might have been expected to reach high proportions 
during the Eo-Oligocene in the Baltic area. The forests 
occupying the Fennoscandian Mountains and the sub- 
[ 256 } 
