ON THE STRATIGRAPHIC POSITION AND AGE OF THE 
JUDITH RIVER FORMATION 
A. C. PEALE 
PART III 
THE PALEOBOTANICAL EVIDENCE 
We have as yet no fully diagnostic flora for the Judith River 
beds, the plants from them being few in number and confined to 
two localities, one of which is in reality not positively placed strati- 
graphically. This meager collection, therefore, is by itself incon- 
clusive. That fossil plants will be found later on is undoubtedly 
true, as indications of their presence have been noted, but they are 
evidently not abundant in the formation, careful search on our 
flying trip having proved entirely unsuccessful. In this connection 
it may be said that plant remains are similarly infrequent also in 
the Lance formation and in the Edmonton or ‘‘Lower Laramie” 
of the Canadians. The plants described from Willow Creek by 
Knowlton’ from the beds referred to the Judith River by Stanton 
and Hatcher? are undoubtedly of Belly River age and do not come 
from the Judith River formation. 
In 1908 fossil plants were collected by members of the U.S. 
Geological Survey from beds supposed by them to be of Judith 
River age near the Macklin Coal Company’s mine on the Big Sandy 
in Montana. ‘This locality is about 12 miles northeast of the Big 
Bend of the Missouri River below Fort Benton, and between 30 and 
35 miles northwest of Judith Landing on the Missouri River near 
the east end of the Bearpaw Mountains. ‘The list of plants as 
identified by Dr. Knowlton is as follows: 
Viburnum perplexum Ward. 
Plantanus nobilis Newberry. 
Populus sp. (large leaf). 
t Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., No. 257, pp. 129-55. 
2 [bid., pp. 56-58. 
738 
