194 MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 



Ctcadella jejuna Ward. 



PL LVII. 



1900. Cycadella jejuna Ward: Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., Vol. I, p. 279; Twentieth 

 Ann. Rep. U. S. Geol. Surv., 1898-99, Pt. II, p. 412, pi. clviii-clxi. 



A large number of fragments are referred to this species, but most of 

 them are very small and so closely resemble one another as to suggest that 

 a large trunk had disintegrated and been reduced to mere chips. One 

 fragment, No. 500.101, proves to be the missing part of the type specimen 

 No. 500.28, and completes the trunk (see pi. clviii, clix). The largest 

 specimen is No. 500.515, and this is supplemented by another, No. 500.491. 

 These together constitute all but a little of the summit of a trunk rather 

 larger than the one last mentioned, but less compressed. The two pieces 

 togetherweigh 2.41 kg. It is 13 cm. high and 12 cm. by 16 cm. in diameter. 

 The base is very oblique and hollowed out on one side. The surface is 

 well shown on all sides. 



Nos. 500.103, 500.195, 500.210, 500.502, 500.504, and 500.684, all 

 join in one way or another to form a considerable part of another 

 trunk, but the resulting combination has no definite shape. There are 

 besides many specimens that almost certainty belong to this trunk. 

 Enough can thus be learned to make sure that it was a large trunk for the 

 species and much compressed, forming a sharp edge somewhat after the 

 manner of No. 500.64. 



In the third invoice there were three small fragments that were first 

 separately referred to this species, and afterwards found to be all com- 

 plementary parts, but they show very little surface and have little value. 

 These are Nos. 100.299, 100.317, and 100.351. 



PL LVII is a side view of the trunk formed by Nos. 500.515 and 



500.491. 



Cycadella concinna Ward. 



1900. Cycadella concinna Ward: Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., Vol. I, p. 280; Twentieth 

 Ann. Rep. U. S. Geol. Surv., 1898-99, Pt. II, p. 412, pi. clxii. 



There were no specimens in the later collections that seemed to 

 belong to this species. As the only specimen known (No. 500.16) is com- 

 plete and presents no fractured surfaces, the nature of the internal struc- 

 ture is unknown, and in such fragments as constitute the bulk of the later 

 collections this becomes the main dependence. It is, therefore, not 

 entirely certain that this species is not represented. 



