116 MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 



a common midrib. It is not certain that these belong to the plant in 

 question. If they do they belong to the upper part of a leaf. 



The plant is not common. It is most abundant at locality No. 7. 

 Several specmiens were found at locality No. 2. 



Ctenis GRANDiroLiA Fontaine 

 PL XXVIII, Figs. 2-8. 



1896. Ctenis grandifolia Font.: Am. Journ. Sci., 4th ser., Vol. II, p. 274 (nomen.). 

 1900. Ctenis grandifolia Font.: Twentieth Ann. Rep. U^ S. Geol. Surv., 1898-99, 

 Pt. II, p. -354, pi. liii, fig. 2; pi. Ivi, figs. 6, 7; pi. Ivii. 



Several specimens of a plant much like Ctenis grandifolia were 

 obtained from the Oroville localities. This plant was found in the 

 Oroville flora. The Oregon specimens do not add anything to the 

 character made out from the Oroville plants. They are much too dis- 

 torted and mutilated. Onh' fragments were found. From these neither 

 the shape nor the size of the leaflets can be determined. The attach- 

 ment seems to have been l^y the whole of a somewhat expanded base, 

 which in one specimen seems to be decurrent, but this is probably due 

 to distortion. The leaflets in the Oregon specimens apparently some- 

 times had great width, equaling 5 cm. The narrowest had near the 

 base a width of about 25 mm. The nerves are quite remote, strong, 

 and sharply distinct, but they are immersed in the leaf substance. They 

 are approximately parallel and anastomose rather freely at long inter- 

 vals, in the same manner as those of Ctenis orovillensis. 



PL XXVIII, Fig. 2, shows the most complete specimen, but it is 

 greatly distorted. A portion of the midrib remains, and to this the 

 three leaflets still preserved were formerly attached. But the attached 

 parts are not now -sdsible. The leaflets indicate a width of 5 cm. Thej- 

 are doul:)led upon themselves along the middle line of their length, 

 owing to being crushed down into the rock. Fig. 3 gives the basal 

 part of a fragment of a wide leaflet, showing nerves rather vaguely. 

 A small portion of this is shown enlarged in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 represents 

 a fragment of the narrowest form of leaflet with the base preserved 

 and showing the mode of attachment, but probably distorted so as to 

 cause an apparent decurrence. Fig. 6 shows the basal portion of this 



