240 FOSSIL FLOBA OF ALASKA— ENOWLTON. vol. xvii. 



Following out the argument suggested by Newberry and Dawson, 

 tbat is, the relation existing between the plants of Alaska and Mac- 

 kenzie River, and these in turn with the Canadian Laramie and the 

 Fort Union group, we have important confirmatory evidence. The 

 flora of the Mackenzie River beds, as worked out by Heer,*-Schrceter,t 

 and Dawson, | now numbers 30 species, and of these no less than 

 12, or 40 per cent, are found in Alaska. The 12 species common to 

 Alaska are not rare or poorly defined in the Alaskan flora, but are in 

 the main well marked and readily determinable forms, most of which 

 are very abundant in individuals, as for exami)le Sequoia Langsdorjii, 

 Taxodium distichum miocenum, Glyptostrobus Europanis or Ungeri, 

 Corylus MacQuarrii, Popnlus areUca, etc. A single species, Pteris 

 SitJccnsis, is confined to these two localities, and a number of other 

 species, though known by diflerent names, are closely allied, if not 

 identical. There can be, therefore, little doubt as to the close rela- 

 tionship between the Alaskan and the Mackenzie River deposits. 



The Mackenzie River flora, as already suggested, is in like manner 

 closely related with the Canadian Upper Laramie, or Fort Union 

 group, as it is called in the United States, about 30 per cent of the 

 Mackenzie species being common to the two. 



On turning to the table we find that 16 of the 55 Alaskan species 

 are found m the Fort Union of the United States. By combining the 

 species common to the Mackenzie River, Canadian Upper Laramie, and 

 Fort Union, we have 22 or 23 of these species also found in the 

 Alaskan beds. 



Without going further into the subject, which indeed the present 

 state of our knowledge will hardly warrant, it is safe to say with Sir 

 William Dawson that " There can scarcely be any doubt tbat the flora 

 of the Upper Laramie, of the Atanekerdluk series in Greenland, and 

 of the Spitzbergen and Alaskan Tertiaries corresponds with the 

 Eocene of Europe, and is also identical with Fort Union flora of the 

 Missouri region, formerly regarded as Miocene." 



Explanation ok Plate IX. 



Fig. 1. Salix niiunta, u. sp 



Fig. 2. Palinrus C'olombi, Heer 



Fig. 3. Acer trilobat urn productum, (Al. Br. ) Heer 



Fig. 4. Oor^'lns MacQuarrii, (Forbes) Heer 



Fig. 5. Juglaus Townseudi, n. sp 



Fig. 6. Rhus frigida, n. sp 



Fig. 7. Fraxinu.s Herendeeneusi.s, ii. sp 



Figs. 8, 9. ZizyphnsTowusendi, u. sp 



Figs. 10, 11. Pliyllites arctica, n. sp.. 



* Fl. Foss. Arct. Vol. vi. 1 Abtb., 3dNr. Beitrage zur Miocene Fl. v. Nord-Canarta. 

 t Op. cit. Vol. VI. 1 Abtb., 4th Nr. Untersuchmig ii. foss. Holzer d. Arct. zone. 

 t Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada. 1889. Fossil plants from Mackenzie and Bow rivers. 



