52 THE FLORA OF THE AMBOY CLAYS. 
scale-like leaves which cover the branches are arranged in double spirals, 
are square or rhomboidal, 3°" to 5 in diameter, with the upper point 
most prominent, and from this strong, sharp ridges radiate over the surface. 
Frequently there is a short keel beginning at the upper angle and running 
a little way down the surface. Good examples of this foliage may be seen 
in the Marquis Saporta’s figures of B. Papareli Sap. and B. Moreauanum 
Brongn. (Paléontologie Frangaise, Flore Jurassique, Vol. HI, Pls. XX XIII 
and XXXVIIJ), but with this typical foliage of Brachyphyllum occur cones 
which are so different from those which have been ascribed to Brachyphyl- 
lum as to make us doubtful of the reference of our plant to that genus, or 
of the apparent connection between the cones and the branches. Unfortu- 
nately, none of the specimens establish beyond all doubt the connection 
between the cones and the branches, but some of the cones are borne on 
pedicels which are marked with scales essentially like those of the branches 
under consideration. When the specimens were first exhumed the scaling 
of the cone stems was well defined, and was such that I did not hesitate to 
connect the twigs bearing the rhomboidal scales with the cones, but contain- 
ing so much woody matter that the lignite of which the cones and twigs 
are composed has cracked and broken away to such a degree that it can not 
now be asserted from the specimens. New material must be sought and 
treated with a better preservative than that which we have to demonstrate 
to all eyes that this, the most common conifer at South Amboy, bore this 
most common cone. The cone represented on Pl. VII, fig. 3, was quite 
entire when found, but has since suffered much by the cracking up of the 
lignite composing it. It was once covered with a series of scoop-shaped or 
spatulate scales, of which some specimens, fairly well preserved, are seen 
near the summit, and the outlines of others on the sides. Ina general way 
the cone resembles that of some species of pine, but its mode of growth 
was different, as will be seen by an examination of the immature cones rep- 
resented in figs. 4 and 6. It is certainly not the cone of a pine tree, and 
my conviction amounts almost to a certainty that it was borne on branches 
like those represented in figs. 1 and 5. 
Some comparisons of these cones with others that have been described 
from rocks of about the age of the Amboy Clays will be interesting and 
