772 SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY 



Atane beds of Greenland Heer describes Williamsonia cretacea* of which 

 species Seward says that the type specimens are very indistinct and 

 unsatisfactory, but this is doubtless due to subsequent desiccation and does 

 not impugn the accuracy of Heer's figures. Williamsonia ? phoenicop- 

 soides Ward 2 from the lower Cretaceous of the Black Hills and William- 

 sonia minima Saporta 3 from the Neocomian of Portugal are both very poor 

 and of doubtful affinities. Williamsonia virginiensis Fontaine, 4 found in 

 the Patuxent formation of Virginia in the same layers with Dioonites 

 buchianus is a very characteristic form and one of the best marked 

 american Williamsoniae. Williamsonia ? gallinacea Ward 5 from the 

 Virginia Potomac and Williamsonia ? libbinsis Ward 8 from the Mary- 

 land Potomac are both very poor and doubtful and very probably repre- 

 sent fragments of Abietites cones. 



Occurrence. MAGOTHY FORMATION. Deep Cut, Delaware; Grove 

 Point, Cecil County, Maryland. 



Collection. Maryland Geological Survey. 



Genus PODOZAMITES F. Braun 

 [In Miinster, Beitr. Petref., Heft vi, 1843, p. 36] 



PODOZAMITES LANCEOLATUS (L. and H.) F. Braun 



Zamia lanceolata Lindley and Mutton, 1836, Fossils FL, vol. iii, pi. cxciii. 

 Zamites lanceolatus F. Braun, 1840, Verzeich. Kreis.-Nat.-Samml. Bayreuth 



Petrefact, p. 100. 

 Podozamites lanceolatus F. Braun, 1843, in Miinster, Beitr. Petrefacten- 



kunde, Bd. ii, pt. vi, p. 33. 

 Podozamites proximans Conrad, 1869, Amer. Jour. Sci. (ii), vol. xlvii, p. 



361, tf. 



Podozamites lanceolatus Schimper, 1870, Pal. Veget, tome ii, p. 160. 

 f Podozamites minor Heer, 1882, Fl. Foss. Arct, Bd. vi, Ab. ii, p. 44, pi. 



xvi, fig. 8. 

 Podozamites lanceolatus Velenovsky, 1885, Gymn. Bohm. Kreidef., p. 11, 



pi. ii, figs. 11-19, 24. 



1 Fl. Foss. Arct., Ab. 2, vol. vi, 1882, p. 59, pi. xii, fig. 1; pi. xiii, fig. 9. 

 2 19th Ann. Kept. U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. ii, 1899, p. 668, pi. clxii, fig. 20. 

 3 Fl. Foss. Port, 1894, p. 105, pi. xix, fig. 9. 



4 Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. xv, 1889, p. 273, pi. cxxxiii, figs. 5-7; pi. clxv, 

 fig. 5. 



8 Ibidem, vol. xlviii, 1906, p. 485, pi. cvii, fig. 4. 

 8 Ibidem, p. 554, pi. cxv, fig. 11. 



