284 



TRIASSIC PLANTS FONTAINE AND KNOWLTON. 



It must, liowever, be borne ia luiud tbat this difference may iupart be 

 due to the accideutsof preservation, as the coarse sandstone of the new 

 mine couhl not preserve imprints of leaves. No previous collector 

 seems to have found fossils at the lower horizon. Dr. Newberry gives 

 no imprints of Equiseta from the Abiquiu Copper Mines, and the mate- 

 rial collected by Major Powell in 1886, which I have examined, evi- 

 dently comes from the higher horizon. The shale, however, which car- 

 ries the impressions collected by Major Powell is more siliceous and 

 indurated than that obtained by Mr, Knowlton, which may be due to the 

 fact that it was got from a different place in the stratum. The follow- 

 ing are the plants identified from this locality : 



1. Zamites Powelli sp.-aov. Foutaiue. 



2. Clmrolepis Munsteri Schimp. 

 ;}. Zamites occidentalis f Newb. 

 4. ralissi/a B)'auiiii f Endl. 



5. Palissi/n cone ? (specimen 13). 



6. Cycadites? (specimen 23). 



7. CUnojihyUum ? 



Zamites Poicelli (Figs. 5-7) occurs as a great rarity among the speci- 

 mens collected by Major Powell, but is the most common of the imprints 

 found by Mr, Knowlton. It is nearest to Zamites Feneonis B^:o\^gw., 

 among previous described plants, but does not seem to be identical with 

 it and is probably new. It does not seem to have been found in the 

 plants described by Newberry from Los Bronces and the copper mines 

 near Abiquiu. It has wider and longer leaflets 1 han Z. occidentalis Newb., 

 and they are more bluntly terminated than those of Z. Feneonis Brongn. 



Cheirolepis Munsteri Schimp. is proportionally much less common 

 among these plants than those collected by Major Powell, and the im- 

 prints are imperfectly preserved. 



One specimen of Zamites occidentalis F Newb, was seen and it was too 

 obscure to permit of a positive identitication, 



Palissya Brannii ? Endl. occurs in several specimens. It is certainly 

 a Palissya and seems to be very near Palissya Brannii^ but the specimens 

 are not well enough preserved and large enough to permit of a positive 

 identification. It seems to be the same with the plant figured as Palis- 

 sya"? in Newberry's Geological Eeportof the Macomb Expedition, Plate 

 VI, Fig, 10. 



Palissya cone! This fossil, seen in only one specimen, is most prob- 

 ably the cone of a Palissya, and probably belongs to the species which 

 has been doubtfully identified with P. Braunii Endl. This cone is much 

 like that given by Newberry in his I feport on the Geology of the Macomb 

 Expedition, Plate V, Fig, 5, It is shorter and has longer scales than the 

 one given by Schenk as the cone of P. Braunii. (See Foss. Flora der 

 Greuzschichten, tafel xii, Fig. 7.) 



Specimen 13 is an obscure imprint, which seems to be a Cijcadifes. 

 Tliis is indicated by the narrow, stiff leaves, narrowed at base to a 

 peduncle and by what seems to be a midrib in the leaves. It is not 

 well enough preserved to be identified with certainty. 



