CRETACEOUS CONIFERALES 25 
phylloclad, somewhat larger in size than that shown in fig. s. There 
are also threé woody cylinders present, the central one of which is 
again the largest. Figure 6, Pl. 28, shows, in transverse section, 
х 40, one of the leaves on the edge of the same phylloclad as that 
shown in fig. 7, in the region where it becomes free from the surface 
of the flattened axis. 
Figure т, Pl. 29, shows a transverse section, X 30, of the largest 
stem in our possession. Here, as in fig. 8, Pl. 28, traces of foliar 
strands may be seen in the lateral wings. Figure 2, Pl. 29, shows the 
structure, in transverse section, X 45, of the central cylinder in fig. 7, 
Pl. 28. The wood is very similar in general appearance in cross- 
section to that found in the case of Brachyphyllum, Geinitzia, etc. 
Figure 3, Pl. 29, shows the structure of part of the woody cylinder in 
fig. 1, Pl. 29, X 180. Itmay readily be seen that the resin cells, which 
as a rule are characteristic of the Podocarpineae, to which the living 
Phyllocladus belongs, are absent. Figure 4, Pl. 29, shows the 
appearance, in longitudinal approximately radial section, X 180, of 
the woody cylinder in the same specimen, which furnished fig. 8, 
Pl. 28. It may be noted that many of the pits are flattened by 
mutual contact in the manner characteristic of araucarineous woods, 
but that this feature is not universal, so that the wood is of the type 
which we propose to describe under a new generic name (see this 
Memoir, p. 54). Figure 5, Pl. 29, shows a longitudinal section, 
x 180, of the branch which furnished figs. 1 and 3, Pl. 29. The 
same type of wood is present. Figure 6, Pl. 29, shows a small part 
of the extreme right-hand portion of fig. 5, Pl. 29, X 500, to illus- 
trate the very typical araucarineous pitting. 
It may be seen from the details of external and internal structure 
that we have in this species a very peculiar type of conifer which 
presents a marked similarity in superficial habit to the podocarpi- 
neous genus Phyllocladus, but difters strikingly from the genus in 
important features of internal structure. There can be no question 
that in this case we have to do with one of the many peculiar arau- 
carineous types which we find to be so characteristic of the Kreischer- 
ville flora. If Professor Seward and others are right in their con- 
tention that the genus Thinnfeldia is of filicineous affinities, then 
our genus, which is beyond question coniferous, has nothing to do 
with Thinnfeldia, with which certain somewhat similar remains from 
the Cretaceous have been considered to belong. Our species, more- 
