JURASSIC FLORA OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREG. 81 



1829. Scolopendriwn solitarium PhilL: Geology of Yorkshire, p. 147, pi. viii, fig. 5. 

 1831. Tseniopteris vittata Brongn.: Hist. Veg. Foss., Vol. I, p. 26.3, pi. Ixxxii, figs. 



1, lA, 2-4. 

 1836. Aspidites Txniopteris Gopp.: Syst. Fil. Foss., p. 350. 

 1843. Pterozamites vittatus (Brongn.) Fr. Br. in Miinster: Beitr. z. Petrefacten- 



Kunde, Vol. II, Heft VI, p. 29. 

 1869. Oleandridium vittatum (Brongn.) Schimp.: Pal. Veg., Vol. 1, p. 607. 



Numerous specimens of a narrow Tseniopteris were obtained at 

 some of the Oregon Jurassic localities. They agree very closely with 

 T. vittata, and there is no doubt that they belong to this species. The 

 specimens in shape and size resemble a good deal the narrower forms 

 of T . orovillensis, and when the lateral nerves are not visible can not 

 well be distinguished from that fossil. Unfortunately, in this case 

 also, as in that of T. major, the leaf substance is so dense and the speci- 

 mens are so much polished by slickensides that it is generally difficult 

 to see them distinctly. 



This fossil is generally narrowly elliptical to linear ribbon-shaped, 

 narrowing gradually to the base and apex. The midrib is propor- 

 tionally very strong, and is prolonged into a long stipe, indicating that 

 the frond was simple. The lateral nerves are slender and rather remotely 

 placed. They go off at nearly or quite a right angle, and go parallel 

 to one another to the margin. They appear to be mostly simple, but 

 are sometimes forked. The forking, however, takes place in no regu- 

 lar way and in no particular position, but seems, as it wei'e, accidental. 

 There is a considerable variation in the width and length of the leaves. 



With some doubt I unite with this species the form depicted in 

 PL XIII, Fig. 6, fotmd in only a single specimen. This differs from the 



made in the synonymy of this species in his Hist. Veg. Foss., Vol. I, p. 263. The reference is probably to the 

 French edition, as there are only 40 pages in fascicle 3 of the original German edition, 1823. On page 37 

 of that fascicle Sternberg mentions the plant figured in pi. xxxvii, iig. 2, and says; "Fig. 2 scheint eher ein 

 Blattstiick einer Scitaminea als ein Farrenkraut .zu seyn." He also states here that this specimen came from 

 Stonesfield. On page 39 of the same fascicle he enters the plant systematically under the general head "Fili- 

 cites" as " Phijllites scitaminexjormis," referring to the same plate and figure. This name also^occurs in the 

 index iconum. It does not occur elsewhere in the work, but is the only binomial appellation that he applied 

 to the plant. If it were certain that this specimen from Stonesfield belonged to the same species as the York- 

 shire forms that Brongniart called Txniopteris vittata, the proper name for the species would be that of Stern- 

 berg, which antedates Brongniart's name by five years. An examination of Sternberg's colored figure, however, 

 makes this doubtful. The character of the nervation is obscured by the effort- to be artistic, and not enough 

 of the leaf is shown to be certain as to its shape. Certainly nothing short of a comparison of the type specimen 

 could positively decide the question. This does not seem to have been done, and I therefore omit aU reference 

 to it from the synonymy of Tseniopteris vittata. — L. F. W. 



MON XLVIII — 05 6 



