128 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [jAN. 18, 



Araucarites ovatus n, sp. 



(PI. xii. figs. 3 a, 4.) 



Leaves elliptical-ovate, acuminate, entire, sessile (?), imbricated and de- 

 current (?), striate longitudinally, lower ones Ih in. long by i in. broad at 

 ■widest part, upper ones becoming successively smaller. 



These specimens represent portions of branches, with leaves 

 which are apparently sessile, imbricated and possibly decurrent. 

 The affinities of the species may be with the monocotyledons, 

 but might equally well be with the gymnosperms, so far as ex- 

 ternal characters are concerned, and the large number of this 

 latter class of plants in the horizoii has seemed to justify its ref- 

 erence to that class rather than to the former. If it were not 

 for the fact that the leaves appear to be sessile and imbricated 

 the species might be placed under the genus Agathis Salisb. 

 (Dammara Rumph), but this might infer generic relationship 

 with the organisms next described, which we are not justified in 

 assuming. 



Dammara (?) Cliff wooDENSis n. sp. 



(PI. xi. figs. 5-8.) 



Scales kite-shaped, abruptly narrowed from above the middle downward, 

 Ij in. long by -k in. wide at the top, abruptly short mucronate pointed, pro- 

 vided on inner surface with numero\is prominent resin glands and ducts 

 which extend downward almost if not quite to the base. 



I was at first inclined to refer these scales to D. borealis 

 Heer, Fl. Foss. Arct. vi. Abth. ii. 54, pi. xxxvii., fig. 5, or to D. 

 microlepis Heer, l. c, 55, pi. xl., fig. 5, but our specimens are 

 much more slender and are intimately associated with coniferous 

 remains to which they might w^ell be related, whereas those 

 figured by Heer, and similar organisms by Newberry from the 

 Amboy Clays (Fl. Amboy Clays, 46, pi. x. fig. 8) and by 

 David White from Martha's Vinej^ard (Am. Journ. Sci. xxxix. 

 (1890) 98, pi. ii. figs. 9, 10) ma}' be the fruits of Eucalyptus 

 and not coniferous cone scales. 



Whatever these latter may eventually be proven to be, it is 

 certain that our specimens are coniferous and are related to some 

 of the other remains found with them. The difference in appear- 

 ance between figs. 5, fi and 7, 8, I regard as due to imperfect 

 preservation in the latter. 



Sequoia Reichenbacht (Gein.) Heer. 



(PI. xii. figs. 3 6, 5.) 



Sequoia ReichenhacM Gein. sp. Heer, Fl. Foss. Arct. i. 83, pl. 

 xliii. figs. Irf, 26, ba^A, del, 8, 86. 



