DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 95 
near Freiberg, Saxony. This was discovered by Reich and described in 
manuscript under the name Fucoides dichotomus. For this name Sternberg 
substituted Haliserites Reichii, because, as he thought, it had so much 
affinity with Haliseris polypodoides Ag., a well-known alga (Fucus membra- 
naceus Stackh.). 
On Pl. XLV, fig. 5, is given a copy of Sternberg’s figure, and it will 
be necessary only to compare this with the other figures on the plate, even 
hastily, to detect a resemblance that can scarcely mean anything else than 
generic identity. Reich’s plant is much smaller than ours and undoubtedly 
belongs to a different species, and yet, as far as we can judge from the 
imperfect material before us, their botanical affinities bring them within 
generic limits. It is impossible that our plant should be a seaweed, and 
hence I have ventured to give it a new generic name, since that chosen by 
Sternberg, if retained, would perpetuate a misconception. 
In Professor Fontaine’s monograph of the Flora of the Potomac Forma- 
tion he describes several species of a genus which he calls Sapindopsis (see 
Pls. CLIV and CLY). All the species are peculiar and, it seems to me, have 
little in common with Sapindus; but what he calls Sapindopsis variabilis 
(Pl. CLIV, figs. 2-4; Pl. CLV, figs. 2-5) is in some respects so like the 
plant before us that I am inclined to regard them as botanically related. 
With more material we may establish a closer union between the plant now 
under consideration and Fontaine’s Sapindopsis, but I do not now feel justi- 
fied in uniting them. I have concluded, therefore, to designate the plant 
figured by Sternberg and that which we have recently discovered in the 
Amboy Clays by a new generic name; and supposing the type may be 
brought into intimate relationship with Fontaine’s Sapindopsis, I venture to 
dedicate the new genus to him as a slight tribute of esteem for one who 
has proved himself among the most important contributors to the science 
of fossil botany. 
The foliage of the plant figured by Sternberg is considered by him as 
a “dichotomous, bipinnate frond, almost pedate,” and a not dissimilar struc- 
ture is visible in the leaf or leaves of Velenovsky’s Aralia elegans, but it is 
difficult to see how such a structure could prevail in the strong and woody 
plant which is the type of the genus under discussion; and yet 1 can not 
