562 MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 



are poorly preserved, so that the true character of the plant can not 

 perhaps be made out. The basal portions of the leaves are the parts 

 most commonly shown. Only in rare cases are parts toward the mid- 

 dle of the leaves found. The most complete leaf is given in PL CXVIII, 

 Fig. 1. This indicates that the leaves were narrowly elliptical to linear 

 ill form, narrowing gradually to a clasping base, without petiole. The 

 margins for some distance above the base seem to have been entire, 

 but toward the ends of the parts preserved — which are not the termi- 

 nations of the entire leaves — there are indications of shallow serrate 

 teeth. The presence of teeth, however, is uncertain, owing to the 

 imperfect preservation of the leaves. The nerves are not ver}'' well 

 shown. There was certainly no midrib, and no prominent nerves in 

 the form of ribs existed. The nerves as shown are few and remote. 

 They run in a straggling manner through the length of the leaf and 

 are approximately parallel. They seem to have been immersed in the 

 cellular tissue. The leaves seem to have grown in a clasping manner, 

 and in a cluster, from a rootstock. By the side of this leaf is an impres- 

 sion of an inflorescence which can scarcely be that of any other plant. 

 This specimen is in counterparts, and the inflorescence is even more 

 distinct on the other piece. The apparent rootstock is shown in PL 

 CXVIII, Fig. 2, where a number of leaves are to be seen grouped around 

 a vaguely defined stem. The leaves appear to have been succulent, 

 with but little fibro-vascular tissue. The specimen represented in Fig. 1 

 bears the number M. G. S., 8559, and that in Fig. 2, 8541. 



There was obtained from Covington and Clement streets a fragment 

 of shale that bears the imprint of a plant that has a leaf of the general 

 character of Plantaginopsis. This may be a more robust form of P. 

 marylandica, or a different species. It may also belong to a genus diffferent 

 from Plantaginopsis, although this is not probable. The points in which 

 it resembles Plantaginopsis are several. The specimen shows several 

 fragments of leaves, which are grouped as if coming from a common root- 

 stock. One of these shows preserved a good deal more of its length than 

 the rest. This indicates that the leaves of this plant were at least twice 

 as long and wide as the others. The largest fragment is about 15 cm. 

 long, with much of the original length wanting. The maximum width 

 shown is alDout 3 cm. The fragment narrows toward the base to about 8 



