XNOWLTON] KOOTANIE PLANTS FROM GREAT FALLS, MONTANA IIQ 



subsequently described forms of Protorhipis and the living Dipteris 

 was noted, the grounds for referring it to the ferns were strengthened, 

 and when, later, Bartholin found evidences of sori arranged as in 

 Dipteris, as apparently did Zeiller, the matter came to be practically 

 settled. However, when Saporta, in 1894, presented his final paper 

 on the fossil flora of Portugal, he took occasion to pass in review the 

 several species of typical Protorhipis, added a new one (P. choffati), 

 and decided that while they of coure resembled the ferns, they might 

 possibly be archetypal dicotyledons, and so placed them with some 

 caution in his group of Proangiosperms. Professor Ward, in a subse- 

 quent paper on "Some Analogies in the Lower Cretaceous of Europe 

 and America," 1 not only accepted Saporta's view, but abandoned his 

 caution and boldly referred the entire genus Protorhipis to the dicoty- 

 ledons. As already noted, such species as P. reniformis, P. cordata, 

 and P. asarifolia can hardly have any legitimate connection with 

 typical Protorhipis, and their wholesale reference to the dicotyledons 

 is certainly without warrant. When we take into account the un- 

 doubted close relationship between Protorhipis and Hausmannia and 

 the demonstrated affinity between the latter and the living Dipteris, 

 it is seen that the grounds for regarding any of these fossil forms 

 as primitive dicotyledons are very slight indeed. Even Saporta's 

 P. choffati, which he compared to numerous living forms, is thought 

 by Seward to be a fern, since it resembles especially the "bracket 

 leaves" of Platyccrium. It certainly does not belong to the genus 

 Protorhipis as gauged by the type species. 



Inasmuch as the flora of the Kootanie shows a strong affinity with 

 that of the older Potomac of the Eastern States, it may be well to 

 compare the species under discussion with certain supposed primi- 

 tive dicotyledons described and figured by Fontaine, 2 such, for in- 

 stance, as his Protecephyllum rcniformc, P. orbiciilare, and Popu- 

 lophyUum rcniformc, but it needs but a glance to show that they are 

 not at all related to Protorhipis Ushcri. While they agree fairly well 

 in size and shape, the primary nervation is entirely different, being- 

 in the Virginia forms not only much more abundant, but distinctly 

 reticulated, which in the former it never is. 



I therefore reach the conclusion that the form here described as 

 Protorhipis fishcri is to be placed among the ferns, and it is regarded 

 as generically similar to Protorhipis buchii. It is named in honor 



1 Sixteenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, pt. I, 1896, p. 535. 

 ! Monog. U. S. Geol. Survey, No. 15, 1889. 



