292 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
Our specimens present a somewhat strong resemblance to the some- 
what recently described Anomalophyllites bridgetonensis of Hollick, 
from the Yellow Gravels of Miocene age at Bridgeton, N.J. (32). This 
is a problematical form which Dr. Hollick has referred to Anomalo- 
phyllites as probably representing its nearest affinity, but it is difficult 
for me to make any precise distinction between it and Cyperacites 
according to the accepted definition of that genus. As a provisional 
reference, perhaps it is of little consequence which genus is given the 
preference. Our material seems to differ from Hollick’s A. bridge- 
tonensis in being much narrower, and in having a much shorter and 
more slender petiole, differences which are specific rather than generic, 
while they may also, possibly, represent accidental differences in imper- 
fectly preserved material. 
250 271 
oscil. (pow So 
A number of poorly preserved fragments of leaves, the exceedingly 
fragmentary condition and imperfect structural markings of which make 
specific reference of doubtful value. But provisionally, at least, it 
would seem that they must be assigned to Cyperacites. 
280 op 1905, 
The specimens included under this number are exceedingly pro- 
blematical. They represent fragments of endogenous leaves which are 
not complete either as to their length or breadth, base or apex. It is, 
therefore, impossible to reach final conclusions respecting them. They 
show, however, a parallel venation, a regular plication (?) or series 
of rounded ridges distant at rather regular intervals of 4 mm. No 
other structural details are recognizable. Precisely the same plant ap- 
peared in the collection of 1903 under the number 230: The external 
appearance of these remains at once suggests the structure of Calamites 
radiatus of Heer, but there are two very substantial objections to 
considering the existence of such a relationship, because (1) it has 
not been possible to determine the presence of the characteristic joints 
of that species, although certain lines of fracture due to longitudinal 
compression, have suggested to some observers to whose attention they 
were directed, their identity with such joints; and (2) Calamites radia- 
tus is a Carboniferous type, with which it would be impossible to correlate 
our present specimens, which are unquestionably of more recent origin. 
There is, likewise, no point of comparison with Heer’s Caulinites, which 
