NO. 2151. FOSSIL PLANTS FROM FLORISSANT— KNOWLTON. 289 



have not seen this specimen, and the reproduction of the figure is so 

 poor that Httle of the nervation can be made out, but I do not believe 

 I should ever have thought of referring it to Menyanthes. The 

 sheathing bases of the petioles, so marked a feature in the living 

 species, are certainly not clear in the fossil, and this coupled with the 

 two entire (unifoliolate?) leaves make it seem improbable that it has 

 been correctly placed in Menyanthes. 



In this connection I may say that I am not able to distinguish the 

 trifoliolate leaves of Menyanthes coloradensis from Cytisus modestus 

 Lesquereux ^ now called Ptelea modesta. 



The types of the latter species are in the National Museimi (fig. 

 9 = 1915; fig. 10 = 1914; fig. 11 = 1913), and all are correctly drawn 

 except figure 9, which has the leaflets entire, instead of toothed, as 

 shown in the ch-awing. So far as can be made out from the figure of 

 Menyanthes coloradensis the leaves are not essentially different from 

 Lesquereux's species. 



Family TILIACEAE. 



TILIA POPULIFOLIA Lesquereux. 



Tilia populifolia Lesquereux, Rept. U. >S. Geol. Surv. Terr., vol. 8 (Cret. and 

 Tert. FL), 1883, p. 179, pi. 34, figs. 8, 9. 



The Hambach collection contains one very good leaf of this species. 



CARPOLITHES MACROPHYLLUS Cockerell. 



Plate 27, fig. 7. 

 Carpolithes macrophylhis Cockerell, Torreya, vol. 11, 1911, p. 235, text fig. 1. 



The Hambach collection contains a single specimen that, presum- 

 ably, should be refeiTed to Cockerell's Carpolithes macrophyllus , 

 though it differs considerably in size. Thus, Cockerell describes the 

 sepals as being about 16 mm. long and 4 mm. broad in the middle, 

 while in the present specimen the sepals are only 10 or 12 mm. long 

 and 2.5 mm. or 3 mm. wide. The shape of the sepals is the same, 

 and so far as can be made out the nervation is identical. There is no 

 trace of the follicles in the present example, in fact it appears to have 

 the basal side exposed, as there is some evidence of a scar of attach- 

 ment. It would seem that if the side exposed was the same as in the 

 Cockerell specimen, some trace of the woody follicles would be likely 

 to remain. 



In the original figure of Carpolithes macrophyllus the folUcles appear 

 to be four in number, "so far as can be seen like those of Lyonothan- 

 nus," Cockerell writes, but according to Sargent's Sylva (vol. 4, 

 p. 133) the fruit of Lynonothamnus is "composed of two woody ovate 

 fom'-seeded follicles, dehiscent on the ventral and partially dehiscent 

 on the dorsal suture," which v/ould exclude the fossil from this genius. 



Lesquernrx, Leo, P.^pt. V. S. Geol. Surv. Terr., vol. 8 (Cret. and Tert. FL), 1883, p. 200, pi. 39, figs. 9-11. 



36399°— Proc.N.M.vol.51— 16 19 



