MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 807 



stomatal characters are described. Recently this same form was dis- 

 covered in considerable abundance at the Georgia locality near Buena 

 Vista, Marion County, in the Eutaw formation of Hale County, Alabama, 

 and in the Magothy formation of Maryland. 



Referring to similarly appearing remains previously described, it may 

 be noted that Miquel ' in 1853 described under the heading Phyllites mon- 

 ocotylei two sorts of parallel-veined leaf-fragments from the Upper Cre- 

 taceous of Aachen (Rhenish Prussia). The first (pi. i, fig. 3) he calls 

 Yuccites ( ?), and the second, which suggests the fossils under discussion, is 

 designated "Palma vel Yuccites ( ?)." From the Valanginian of Portugal 

 Heer 2 described what he calls Bambusium latifolium, which is also sug- 

 gestive of the American material. Krasser 3 described somewhat similarly 

 appearing remains from the Cretaceous (Cenomanian ?) of Moravia as 

 Typliceloipum cretaceum. These are somewhat smaller than the American 

 forms and show transverse veinlets which are absent in the latter. 

 Saporta 4 referred forms of this kind, which are not uncommon in the Ceno- 

 manian of Portugal, to a new monocotyledonous genus, which he calls 

 Pln/Hotcenia, comparing it with Bambusa, Elilzocaulon, etc. Smaller but 

 otherwise comparable Lower and Upper Cretaceous forms were named by 

 Schenk 5 Eolirion, and similar older Mesozoic forms are commonly referred 

 to the form-genus Yuccites." Perhaps the most similar fossils known are 

 those referred to the genus Krannem, and fully described by Velenovsky, 7 

 who does not, however, arrive at any satisfactory conclusion regarding 

 their relationship, although he thinks they are Cycadaceous. 



It seems undesirable to refer the present material to Yuccites, since 

 while it is similar to the more ancient remains so named, it is entirely 

 improbable that it is congeneric with the Triassic type upon which this 



1 Miquel, Verh. geol. kaart. Nederl. I, 1853, pp. 33-56, plates i-vii. 



2 Heer, Cont. Fl. Foss. Portugal, 1881, p. 22, pi. 19, figs. 1-3. 



3 Krasser, Beitr. z. Kennt. Foss. Kreidefl. v. Kunstadt, 1896, p. 15, pi. ii, f g. 4. 



4 Saporta, Fl. Foss. Port., 1894, pp. 216, 221, pi. xxxviii, figs. 6-8, 12, 13, 21; pi. 

 xxxix, fig. 20. 



5 Schenk, Pal., Bd. xix, 1869, p. 20. 



G Schimper and Mougeot, Mon. PI. Foss. Vosges, 1844, p. 42. 

 7 Velenovsky, Gym. Bohm. Kreidefl., 1885, p. 1. 



