FLORA OF THE CHEYENNE SANDSTONE OF KANSAS. 



223 



Among the somewhat simihir forms which 

 Ward mentions are remains from Kukurbit, in 

 Kach (Lias) , described by Fcistmantel ™ as 

 ' ' portions of a stem of a coniferous plant. ' ' 

 Next in point of similarity are certain English 

 and German Wealden remains regarded as 

 parts of Clathraria anomala*" some of which 

 are still referred by Seward ^' to Bucklandia 

 anomala, a later name for the same plant. 

 The latter are undoubtedly medullary casts of 

 cycadophyte trunks, a class of remains for 

 which Saporta " proposed the name Cyca- 

 deomyelon, describing one species from the 

 infra-Lias of Hettange, near Metz (MoseDe)." 

 Remotely similar remains from the Triassic of 

 York County, Pa., are described by Fontaine ^^ 

 as Cycadeomyelon yorlcense, and the forms 

 described by Newberry^ are referred to it, 

 although Seward*" had shown that remains 

 from abroad identical with these are to be 

 interpreted as medullary casts of Voltzin. 

 Similar remains were more recently discussed 

 by Wills,*' who refigures one of the original 

 specimens of Yoltzia cohurgensin.*^ They are 

 also practically identical in character, as 

 Potonie*^ has shown, with casts of the medul- 

 lary cavities of certain existing Araucarias, 

 notably Araucaria hrasiliana. Other remains 

 of this general sort, which, however, seem 

 referable to the Cycadophyta, are Omphihrnda 

 scabra Germar,^" renamed by Schimper^' Clath- 

 raria? germari, and Oycadeoidea stillwelliWsird.^- 

 As Seward has pointed out, Williamson''^ fig- 

 ured very similar casts of the medullary cavity 

 of Stiymaria, thus emphasizing the wide range 

 in botanic affinity of objects of this kind. 



35 Feistmantel Ottokar, Fossil flora of the Condwana system, vol. 2, 

 pt. 1, p. Ul, pi. 10, fig. 2, 1S70. 



" Stokes and Webb, Oeol. Soo. London Trans., 2d ser., vol. 1, pi. 46, 

 fig. 8; pi. 47, figs. 4b, 4c, 1824. See Schenk's figure of Clathraria lyclU 

 Mantell, i'alaeontographica, Band 19, p. 227, pi. 30, fig. 7, 1S71. 



" Seward, A. C, Wealden flora, pt. 2, p. 123, 1S95. 



" Saporta, Gaston de, Planter jurasslqucs, tome 2, p. 331, 1873. 



« Idem, p. 333, atlas, pi. 49, fig. 5. 



" Fontaine, W. ^t., in Ward, L. F., U. S. Geol. Survey Twentieth 

 Ann. Rept., pt. 2, p. 248, pi. 30, 1900. 



" Newberry, J. S., op. cit. 



« Seward, A. C, Ueol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. 7, pp. 218-220, fig. 1, 1890. 



" Wills, L. J., Geol. Assoc. Proc., vol. 21, pp. 292-294, 1910. 



« Idem, pi. 17, flg. 0. 



" Potoni^, H., K. preuss. geol. Landesanst. Jahrb., 1887, pp. 311-331, 

 pis. 12-13a. 



"> Ciermar, E. F., Palaeontographica, Band 1, p. 3, 1840. 



" Schimper, W. P., Pal^ontologio vi5g6* ,]e, tome 3, p. 554, 1S74. 



'2 Ward, L. F., U. S. Oeol. Survey Twentieth jinn. Kept., pt. 2, p. 036, 

 pi. 149, 190O. 



" Williamson, W. C, A monograph on the morphology and histology 

 ol Stigmaria ficoides, pi. 13, figs. 64, 65, Palaeont. Soc, 1887 



Turning now to the Cretaceous remains to 

 which the genus, if used at all, should be re- 

 stricted (although Ward has the temerity to 

 rename Feistmantel 's Indian Liassic fossil 

 Ffistmanttlia fusiformu) , we may note that in 

 addition to the type species from the Fuson 

 formation, Fontaine "'* has described an addi- 

 tional species from the Patuxent formation at 

 Cockpit Point, Va., wliich is really indistin- 

 guishable from the type species, and Ward ^^ 

 has mentioned the occurrence of similar objects 

 from Kansas at a liigher Cretaceous horizon. 

 Still more recently HoUick and Jeflrey ^^ have 

 described comparable remains with structure 

 preserved from the upper Raritan of Kreischer- 

 ville, Staten Island, and have demonstrated 

 their coniferous nature, naming their laiaterial 

 Plnus sp. ? Some of this material is said to 

 have been found in organic connection with 

 wood showing the characters of Pitoxylon. It 

 is not altogether clear that the Lower Creta- 

 ceous species of Feistmantelia are of the same 

 nature as that described by Hollick and 

 Jeffrey, although these authors have furnished 

 the presumption that they are all casts of the 

 interstitial cavities of the periderm network of 

 the bark, due to decay, in some conifer. That 

 they should be referred to Pinus, even for indi- 

 vidual specimens, seems unwise, and the genus 

 Feisfmantdia is here retained as a convenient 

 form genus for remains of this sort, wliich may 

 represent various modern coniferous genera. 



Indistinguishable remains occur in the Tus- 

 caloosa formation of ^llabama, although I did 

 not consider them of sufficient importance to 

 include them in my paper on the Tuscaloosa 

 flora." They are also present at as recent a 

 horizon as the upper part of the Black Creek 

 formation in North Carolina. These also I did 

 not consider of sulficient interest to include in 

 my account of that flora, but I am including 

 here a figure of a North Carohna specimen for 

 comparison with one from the Chc3'enne sand- 

 stone, to show that the latter is without strati- 

 graphic value. 



■'•1 Fontaine W. M., in Ward, L. F., 0. S. Oeol. Survey Mon. 48, p. 484, 

 pi. 107, flg. 3, 1906. 



» Ward, L. F., U. S. Geol. Survey Nineteenth Ann. Rept., pt. 2, p. 694, 

 1899. 



M Hollick, Arthur, and Jeflrey, E. C, New York Hot. Garden Mem., 

 vol. 3, p. 17, pi. 3, fig. 8; pi. 22, fig. 5, 1909. 



!■• Berry, E. W., U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 112, 1919. 



