212 COCKERELL: A NEW GENUS OF FOSSIL LILIACEAE 
at Station 14. This (Fic. 1, A, B) shows that we have to 
do neither with a leaf, frond nor pod, but with a cladode. At- 
tached to the midrib is anindistinct mass, presumably a thin bract, 
upon which can be seen a dark object (Fic. 1, B), which seems to 
agree very closely with the flower of Ruscus. The pistil is 
erect and distinct. The plant is dioecious, and the staminate 
flower is as yet unknown. At first I thought there might be 
two flowers, but the supposed second one is, I believe, part of 
the midrib. 
As I could not identify the plant with Rzscus, I consulted 
Dr. Britton, who very kindly sent me material of Phyllonoma 
ruscifolia Willd. and Ruscus hypoglossum L. It was at once 
apparent that the fossil had nothing to do with Phyllonoma, 
but returning to Ruscus as the only alternative, I was able 
to recognize close morphological similarity. The genus Ruscus 
is today limited to a few Palaearctic species, with lanceolate 
to ovate sharply pointed cladodes. The apical points are stiff 
and sharp, as any one who has handled butcher’s broom will 
testify. At first sight the venation seems quite different from 
that of the fossil, but if we imagine the Ruscus cladode broadened 
and abbreviated until the principal veins are nearly or quite 
transverse instead of longitudinal, the correspondence is exact. 
The published figures of the fossil do not show that there are 
principal veins, just as in Ruscus. 
The morphological correspondence is so exact t that it becomes 
a question whether the fossil can be referred to Ruscus. However, 
considering the broad form of the cladodes, with truncate or 
emarginate, mucronate apex, the essentially transverse veins, 
and the remoteness in time and space, it appears justifiable to 
establish a distinct genus, Brachyruscus, the species becoming 
Brachyruscus Alleni sp. nov.* Whether Heer’s Salvinia ret- 
* Dr. Hollick writes that he is not convinced that the flowering cladode, 
which I have figured and described, belongs to the same plant as the ‘‘ Tmes- 
tpteris” Alleni. 1 had considered the possibility of there being two different 
things, and am personally entirely convinced that all the specimens belong 
to a single species. However, I will designate the flowering specimen as the 
type of the genus and of a species which I will name B. Alleni. This name 
will remain valid if my view is correct, only B. Alleni Cockerell will be a 
synonym of B. Alleni (Lesq.) Cockerell. If it should be decided that there 
_ are two quite different plants, B. Alleni Cockerell will still stand, only to 
fall in case some author considers that two distinct species of Brachyruscus 
are present 
