KNOWXTON] KOOTANIE PLANTS FROM GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 121 



ZAMITES ARCTICUS Gbppert 



Zamites arcticus Goppert, Neues Jahr. f. Min., etc., 1866, p. 134, pi. 11, figs. 

 9, 10; Fontaine in Ward, Monog. U. S. Geol. Survey, No. 48, 1905 

 [1906], p. 306, pi. lxxiii, figs. 1-6. 



The status of this species in the Kootanie areas of the United 

 States has been completely set forth by Professor Fontaine (loc. cit.) , 

 and it is unnecessary to go over the ground here. It is an abundant 

 species in the present collection, in some instances being the only 

 form present at certain localities. 



Locality. — Brown sandy shale 2 feet above main coal at Smauch's 

 mine, Belt Creek, Belt, Cascade County, Montana (only species pres- 

 ent) ; Meridith mine, 3 miles southeast of Nollar's ranch [base of 

 main coal] ; cut on Hazlett Creek 3 miles south of Bauer's sheep 

 ranch [43 feet below main coal]. 



ZAMITES APERTUS Newberry 



Plate XIII, Fig. 5 



Zamites apcrtus Newberry, Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 6i, 1891, p. 199, pi. 

 xiv, figs. 4, 5. 



Ill seeking to identify the numerous specimens of Zamites in this 

 collection I have been confronted with apparently the same difficulty 

 that Professor Fontaine encountered, namely, a considerable number 

 of so-called species to choose from and the difficulty of locating 

 them definitely under either. Thus from the Canadian Kootanie 

 Dawson reported Z. acutipennis Heer, Z. montana Dawson, and a 

 form not specifically named, but which Fontaine 1 has placed under 

 Z. arcticus Heer. In addition to these we have Newberry's Z. 

 apcrtus, from the Great Falls area. As Fontaine very well says, it 

 is more than probable that all of these (with the possible exception 

 of Z. apcrtus) should be referred to Z. arcticus Heer; for, while it 

 is possible to note minor differences, they are obviously of little value 

 in considering a group in which there is known to be such variation 

 as in cycad leaves. But with Z. apcrtus it is a little different, for 

 while Newberry compared his species to Z. arcticus, he stated that 

 it was "much more open in structure, the pinnules being sepa-ated 

 by spaces sometimes as wide as themelves." I have not seen i^.iy- 

 where figures referred to Z. arcticus in which the leaflets are so 

 widely separated, and for this confessedly doubtfully sufficient rea- 



1 In Ward, Monog. U. S. Geol. Survey, No. 48, 1905 [1906], p. 306. 



