254 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol 51. 



JUGLANS FLORISSANTI Lesquereiu. 



Plate 17, fig. 2. 



Juglans florissanti Lesquereux, Kept. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., vol. 8 (Cret. 

 and Tert. Fl.) 1883, p. 190 



Type.— C&t. No. 50,355, U.S.N.M. [Original No. 80 of Lacoe's 

 cabinet.] 



This species, here figured for the first time, was named and de- 

 scribed by Lesquereux in 1883, and became the property of the United 

 States National Museimi by the accession of the Lacoe collection. It 

 is possible that it is the same as the species here described as Juglans 

 magnifica, but it appears shghtly different and is held distinct. It 

 has, as Lesquereux said, a rough surface and is altogether of a coarser 

 aspect than J. magnifica; it is also much less unequal-sided at base. 



JUGLANS AFFINIS Klrchner. 



Juglam affinis Kirchner, Trans. St. Louia Acad. Sci., vol. 8, 1898, p. 184, pi. 13; 

 fig. 2. 



Type.— C&t, No. 33,680, U.S.N.M. 



JUGLANS? SEPULTUS Cockerell. 



Plate 17, fig. 4. 



Juglansf sepultus Cockerell, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 24, 1908, p. 80, 



pi. 6, fig. 8. 

 Juglans costata Unger. Lesquereux, Kept. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., vol. 8 



(Cret. and Tert. Fl.), 1883, p. 190, pi. 39, fig. 5. 



A single specimen in the Hambach collection undoubtedly belongs 

 here. It is so preserved as to indicate beyond reasonable doubt 

 that it is really the fruit of Juglans. 



Family MYRICACEAE. 



Genus MYRICA. 



Of the 200 species of plants, more or less, that have been described 

 from Florissant, the greatest number of nominal species, and probably 

 the greatest number of individuals have been referred to the genus 

 Myrica. Almost every blow of the hammer is pretty certain to dis- 

 close one or more of the forms that have been referred to this genus. 

 The result has been to bring together very considerable collections, 

 and from which it is now possible to draw fairly definite conclusions 

 as to probable specific limitations, though there are of course some 

 points on which the evidence is not yet complete enough for final 

 decisions. Many of the earlier collections, on which Lesquereux 

 based much of his work, were very small and afforded little or no evi- 

 dence on the range in specific variation, with the result, as we can now 



