DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 83 
by Professor Heer and myself, but while they are evidently related to the 
tulip tree, their simple ovate or lanceolate form, relatively small size, and 
strongly marked, reticulated nervation separate them into a group by 
themselves possessing characters which seem to have more than a specific 
value. 
LIRIODENDROPSIS SIMPLEX Newb. 
IAL OS, igs, Bo wig IEG IUIQUIS tikes ale tc 
Liriodendron simplex Newberry, in part, Bull. Torrey Bot. Club., Vol. XTV, 1887, 
p. 6, Pl. LXII, figs. 2, 3. 
Leaves 8™ to 10° in length, long petioled, ovate-lanceolate in outline, 
sometimes undulate to slightly fiddle-shaped or constricted, from 3° to 6° 
in width at the broadest part, summit emarginate, wedge-shaped; nervation 
fine but distinct, midrib strong, terminating abruptly in the sinus of the 
summit, lateral branches forming two sets, the first and larger being sepa- 
rated by intervals of about 6™", branching near their extremities, and 
anastomosing to form a coarse network along the border; the spaces 
between these divided unequally by one or several smaller, shorter, and 
generally simple nerve-branches which run parallel with the large ones, 
sometimes connecting with the exterior network; all the spaces between 
the lateral nerves occupied by a relatively coarse reticulation. 
Although so different from the leaves described under the names of 
Liriodendron oblongifolium and L. quercifolium, these have in common with 
them the peculiar angular emargination so characteristic of the genus, and 
essentially the same nervation. The more elongate and lanceolate form 
represented on Pl. LILI, figs. 3, 4, occurs in considerable numbers, and 
apparently represents a distinet species, but others are broader and more 
ovate or irregular in outline, like those represented on Pl. XIX, figs. 2, 3; 
Poors) 2 i. 
Professor Heer, in his Flora Fossilis Arctica, Vol. VI, Abth. II, Pl. 
XXII, has represented a number of leaves which apparently belong to the 
same species with those now under consideration. All these he regards as 
varieties of L Meekii, first described by him from the Dakota sandstones, 
but it seems to me that they do not represent either of the two forms 
