GEOLOGICAL SUEVEY OF THE TEERITORIES. 291 



Fl. Arc, I, PI. ii, Fig. 2, but nearly twice as large. To this species is 

 referable tbe form wbich Heer, in Fl. Alas., p. 23, PI. i, Fig. 10 and 10 h, 

 considered as possibly a variety of S. Langsdorfii, and perhaps also the 

 branches figured as /S". Langsdorfii, (?) by Newberry, PI. xi. Fig. 4, 4ued. 

 In this, however, the base of the leaves is decurrent, without being nar- 

 rowed. 



There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the relation of the. 

 fragments of coniferous species, published from our Tertiary strata 

 by the authors quoted above. The remarks of Dr. Newberry, con- 

 cerning the deciduous appearance of leaves and branchlets of his 

 species, are, in part, applicable to our fragments from Sage Creek ; 

 but in the form which he has observed from Yellowstone, (Notes on 

 the Later Extinct Floras, &c., pp. 46 to 48,) the leaves are much longer, 

 decurrent, without narrowing at the base, as in the living species of 

 Sequoia. If, therefore, this form of decurrent leaves is to be considered 

 as a generic character, his species is a true Sequoia. Our leaves, nar- 

 rowed at base, though evidently slightly decurrent, have the same 

 character, and are besides associated with cones of Sequoia : but they 

 are sometimes abruptly pointed and short, like the leaves of what Heer 

 names Taxites microp'hyllus, (Fl. Alas., p. 24, Pl.i, Fig. 9,) or narrower, 

 longer, ensiform, distant, nearly as in Taxodium Tinajorum, Heer, PL i. 

 Fig. 1, loc. cit. AH the specimens, representing our species, as described 

 above, are mere small branchlets of annual growth; but as all are 

 bearing leaves, like the branches figured and described from Yellow- 

 stone, it is a proof that the leaves were not deciduous, as in Taxodium. 

 I think, therefore, that this character of decurrent leaves is rightly con- 

 sidered as generic, and distinctly separates the fragments of Sequoia; 

 but that the form, length, «&c., of the leaves are, as yet, unreliable for 

 specific distinction. 



QuEECUS iLicoiDES, (?) Hccr, (Fl. Ter. Helv., II, p. 55, PI. cli. Fig. 25.) 

 The specimens represent three broken leaves of the same species, which 

 only differ from each other by their width and the size of the marginal 

 divisions. The largest is an exact representative of Heer's figure, Iog. 

 cit. The borders are deeply, pinnately lobed, with sharp pointed lobes, 

 separated by round sinuses. In the other fragments, which are much 

 narrower, the lobes are less marked and the borders become merely 

 wavy, with sharp but short teeth. The nervation is obsolete, the 

 secondary veins being slender and scarcely discernible. They appear 

 to pass obliquely to the point of the lobes, sinuous, and connected to 

 shorter, intermediate veins. The leaves are bordered by a narrow, flat- 

 tened, cartilaginous (?) margin, as the leaves of species of Ilex. By this 

 character, as by their form, these fragments might be considered as 

 representing a species of this genus, resembling especially Ilex Studeri, 

 Heer, (loc. cit., Ill, p. 72, PI. 122, Fig. 11 ;) but their nervation is that of a 

 Qtiercus. 



14. EvANSTON, Utah, (below the Coal.) 



Eeddish, ferruginous, hard shale, breaking in the line of stratification, 

 containing abundant remains of plants, generally flattened leaves, with 

 surface blackened by a thin coat of coaly matter ; details of nervation 

 distinct. 



Cyperus Chavanensis, (?) Heer, (Fl. Ter. Helv., PI. xxviii, Fig. 1.) A 

 flattened stem, 1 centimeter broad, without any articulation, smooth 

 or obscurely striate, with primary veins thick, varying in distance and 

 separated by very thin secondary veins, as in Fig. 1 F, loc. cit, is 

 referable to this species. 



