72 FLORA OF SOUTHERN NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLxVND. 



LiRioDENDROPSis RETusA (Heer) n. comb. 



PI. XXV, figs. 8, 9. 



Sapotacites retusus Heer, Fl. Foss. Arct., vol. 7, 1883, p. 32, pi. 61, fig. 10; Newberry, Mon. U. S. Geol. Sur- 

 vey, vol. 26 (Fl. Amboy Clays), 1895 (1896), p. 123, pi. .53, figs. 5, 6. 

 Liriodendron simplex Newb. Hollick., Trans. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 12, 1893, p. 235, pi. 5, fig. 5. 



I can see no valid reason for regarding the leaves represented by these speci- 

 mens as generically distinct from the others with notched apices, referred to Lirio- 

 dendropsis, and in fact thej^ might even be included in some one or another of the 

 described species of tliat genus, but Newberry considered the form represented by 

 our two specimens here figured to be distinct. Whether the distinctive features 

 should be regarded as generic, specific, or varietal is largely a matter of personal 

 choice and convenience. 



Locality: Woodbridge, N. J., PI. XXV, fig. 8. Specimen in Mus. New York 

 Bot. Gard. 



Glen Cove, Long Island, PI. XXV, fig. 9. Collected by Arthur Holhck. 

 Specimen in Mus. New York Bot. Gard. 



LiRioDENDROPSis SIMPLEX (Newberry) Newberry. 

 PI. XXIII, figs. 1-7; PI. XXIV, figs. 1-9; PI. XXV, figs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 10-12; PI. XXVI, figs, lb, Ic, Id. 



Liriodendropsis simplex Newb., Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 26 (Fl. Amboy Clays), 1895 (1896), p. 83, pi. 19, 

 figs. 2, 3; pi. 53, figs. 1-4, 7; Hollick, Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., vol. 7, 1895, p. 13. 



Liriodendron simplex Newb. in part, Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, vol. 14, 1887, p. 6, pi. 62, figs. 2, 3; White, Am. 

 Jour. Sci., vol. 39, 1890, p. 98, pi. 2, figs. 6, 7; Uhler, Trans. Maryland Acad. Sci., vol. 1, 1892 (1901), 

 p. 207; Hollick, Trans. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 11, 1892, p. 99, pi. 2, figs. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9; Ibid., vol. 12, 

 1893, p. 235, pi. 5, figs. 1, 2, 4; pi. 7, fig. 2; Fifty-fifth Ann. Kept. New York State Mus., 1901 (1903), 

 p. r50; Pollard, Trans. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 13, 1894, p. 180. 



It is with some hesitation that I have included all tliese leaf forms in this one 

 species, and it is impossible to know whether the author of the species would have 

 done so, but any attempt to separate them, even into varieties, seems hopeless, on 

 account of the large number which it would be impossible to differentiate satisfac- 

 torily; and in tliis connection it mny be remarked that not nearly all the specimens 

 available have been figured. 



When the relatively coarse secondary nervation only is preserved the leaves 

 present quite a different appearance to those in which the finer intermediate nerva- 

 tion also is apparent. In the latter case the entire system of nervation is so inter- 

 laced that the distinction between coarser and finer nerves is often difficult to 

 discern. 



Another feature also of the nervation, to which Newberry did not call atten- 

 tion, is the quite considerable variation in the angle of divergence from the midrib. 

 In those leaves which are symmetrical or nearly so, the angle is practically uniform, 

 while in those which are irregular in outline the angle varies from about 45 degrees 

 to almost a right angle in the same leaf, according to the position of the marginal 

 inequalities. 



However we nia.y regard them, it is evident that these leaves represent one or 

 more of the most abundant elements hi the Cretaceous flora of this region, and if 



