STRATIGRAPHIC POSITION OF JUDITH RIVER FORMATION 1739 
Populus cuneata Newberry. 
Populus glandulifera Heer. 
Berchemia multinervis Al. Br. 
Viburnum sp. 
Sapindus grandifolius Ward. 
Taxodium distichum miocenum Heer. 
These are of undoubted Fort Union age, but as the named species 
are common to both the Upper and Lower Fort Union (Lance) 
formations, it is impossible, without knowing the exact strati- 
graphic relations, to say which of the two they represent. The 
probabilities are that they are from the Lower and are, therefore, 
from the Lance, that is, that they are really from the Judith River 
(not Belly River) beds, in accordance with the belief of the collect- 
ors; and they are likely to have come from the upper part of this 
series. However, at the present time it is impossible to make any 
very positive statement regarding them. 
The second locality is on Cow Creek, where Dr. Stanton found 
many leaves of Trapa(?) microphylla about 30 feet above the base 
of the Judith River beds. This species has a wide distribution in 
the Fort Union formation, occurring in both the Upper and the 
Lower Fort Union beds, having been found abundantly by Pro- 
fessor L. F. Ward at Burns ranch on the Yellowstone below Glen- 
dive and at many other localities and by other collectors in the 
Lance formation in Converse County, Wyo. It is also found in the 
Canadian ‘‘Lower Laramie” which, as we regard it, is the equiva- 
lent of the Lance formation and of the Judith River beds. The 
type of Trapa( ?) microphylla was described by Lesquerreux from the 
Montana formation of Point of Rocks, but, as Knowlton’ has indi- 
cated, it is questionable whether the species from the Montana 
and from the Fort Union and underlying beds are all one and the 
same. 
In regard to the plants of the Lower Laramie (or Judith River 
series in Canada), concerning which Dawson? made the statement 
that ‘‘the flora of the Belly River closely resembles that of the 
Lower Laramie,” it is to be urged that comparison of the two lists 
shows that the resemblance between the floras is, after all, not very 
t Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., No. 163, 1900, p. 63; ibid., No. 257, 1905, p. 145. 
2 Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, III, sec. IV (1885), p. 20. 
