2(18 FOSSII. PLANTS I'K'OM 'IKXAS lONTAlNK. 



h'alluM'y leaves (»r ^S^^|l(oi<( jxijiiopliiilloidcs aie by far llio most coiihikhi 

 lossils. Tlie more IVa.uile forms, like Si»lM'iiole|)i(liiim, Larieopsis, etc., 

 are si_j;iiilieaiit by t lieii rarity. ()\\ iiiii' (o liie lad that Hie parls of t lie 

 plants were probably not eoNcred with sediment as they tell, il is 

 impossible to deteiinine iVom the relative abnndanee of (he fossils any 

 IhiniA'eoneerninu the nnmerieal relations of tin- plants in the thtra. 



Abietites Linkii (ivonu.) l>iiiilv. 



I'l. WWII, I'in. '2. 



TliedhMi l\ose lossils fnrnish two or three s])eeimens of a eouifer that 

 a lii'CM's closely with Ahitiilcs /w';//i// as desei ibed and liuiired by Seheuk.* 

 Sehenk's li^nres represent delaelied lea\es, but the Texas Ibssil is the 

 end of an nllimate t wii;" w ith se\'eral leases altaeln-d. The exaet mode 

 <tf attachment of the leaves is not shown, but (hey. unlike (he Cepha 

 lolaxopsis of the Potomac, a typ*' somewhat similar to (his, arc scat- 

 tered ai'onnd (he stem and taper juradnally to theii' bases, T1m> leaves 

 are. \ery ri.u'id, coriaceons, linear in form, with obtnse tips. Only one 

 uood tij) was seen, and the emari;ina(e featnr'e nn'iditaicd by Sclienk 

 was iM>( (»bser\ed. 'I'he midrib is single and stroni;. i( is (piite lare 

 anion j; tlu' (Jlen lioso lossils. 



Laricopsis longifolia l'\iut. 

 I'l. \x\vi. Fi.ti-. !». 



A v<M'y distinctly defined imprint ot a small cylindrical stem was 

 found amonj;' the(!len Hose fossils, it has a distinct pittinj;. with small 

 depressions (ha( appear to be (he scars of fallen leaves or leal' bundles. 

 Attached to the stem which is proportionally \ery lar.m'. are the bases 

 of several very narrow lea\es. The leaves appear to have been thread- 

 like. The stem and the leaxes an> exactly like some of those of Lari- 

 ropsis loHjiifoluiydrsvv'ihcd by the writer from the Totomac of \'iri;inia.t 

 All (he characters auree so well with those of the Potomac ])lant that, 

 althouiih the amount t»l" the. material is Neiy small. 1 have no hesitation 

 in re^ardinji" this Texas fossil as L. louiiiloHn. 



'I'he ner\es of the leaxes could not be made out in the (Hen Pt»se 

 spei'inieii, but there is nothing to indicate that tlu\\ are not single in 

 each leaf, as in the Potomac fossil. 



Sphenolepidiuin Steiiibeigianuin. var. densifoliuin font 



IM. xxx\i. Vvj:. Id 



Se\»Mal specimens of a. conifer were foniid lliat ajipear to be identi 

 tied \\\\\\ S}>htin)U'itUlh(m IStrnihrniidinim, \:\v. tlr)isij'(>lii(in. This vari- 

 ety w as dclei iiiined by (he writer from the Potomaeof \ iruiiiia. 



'"Fossilr I'loia tlt'i Nni(l\\c.st(|(iil.s(licii \\ I'aliliiiltiriiialinn." ii|i .".;•. in i'l. XIX, 

 Fiira. 1-'.. 



t M(>iuij;rai>li \\, I'. S. (Icolu^Ha! Siir\c\. I'ail i, lr\l, p L';!;! Coiniiaro of llio 

 .saiiii" work, I'art ii. plali s I'l . i \\ in. I i-;. r>. 



