JUbch 29, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



345 



nervation. These leaves are all quite small, 

 but show a somewhat distinct midrib, and 

 usually 2— t lateral primaries. In t'orm thej' 

 recall some species of Yitis or Cissities, and 

 D. eerclj'onne, while not resembling Cereis, 

 as the specific name would imply, has many 

 of the characteristics of Hedera. It may be 

 roughly compared with Professor Fontaine's 

 Vitiphyllum from the Potomac of Baltimore, 

 and except in size D. hederaceum and D. 

 corrugahim are fairly comparable with Pop- 

 ulophyllum reniforme (cf. Fl. Pot., pi. clvi., 

 f.3). 



In the Albian beds of Buarcos, and es- 

 pecially in the Vraconnian of Nazareth, we 

 Ijegin to find some of the higher tj'pes. 

 But the genus Proteopliyllum has still a 

 very ancient appearance with a more or 

 less areolate nervation. It is a narrowly 

 lobed leaf, remotely recalling in its general 

 form some species of Dewalquea. It may 

 be possible to trace this form into his Aralia 

 ealomorpha from the same beds. His Adojea 

 praatavia is a very peculiar plant, which 

 also reminds one of Vitiphyllum Font., al- 

 though none of the species of the latter ge- 

 nus which show tlie Ijrancliiug character 

 have j'et been figured. His Braseniopsis ve- 

 nulosa has some of the chai-acteristics of 

 Protophyllura of Lesquereux, but is usuallj- 

 smaller and always entire; the nervation is 

 also different, except at the base of the leaf, 

 which has a large expansion below the sum- 

 mit of the petiole, as in Protophyllum. 

 Myrginophylhnn revisendinn will doubtles have 

 to be revised. It is much like Potomac 

 forms that have been referred to Myrica (e. 

 g., M. brookemi.<) and Celastrophyllum. It 

 is entirely diff'erent from the Myr.iiiie bore- 

 alU of Heer, which, with two other species, 

 occur in the Amboy clays and Tuscaloosa 

 formation. His Geranium lucidum is an ex- 

 ceedingly definite and handsome form, but 

 it is hard to separate it generically from his 

 Cmite^ ginuosus, and all of these seem to be 

 analogous to our Vitiphyllum. His Menii- 



pennites cercidifoUu-i. though much smaller, 

 is not unlike Profes.sor Fontaine's M. Vir- 

 ginieniiii, especially the smaller forms which 

 I have found in the Mt. Vernon clays. His 

 Aralia pro.rima can scarcely be distinguished 

 from M. WeUimjtoniaiia of the Dakota group, 

 more common in the Newer Potomac. 



It is only in the Nazareth beds (Vracon- 

 nian) that we find the tj-pical Amboy Clay 

 flora. Here we have the Eucalyptus, 

 Laurus (Laurophyllum), Salix, Myrsino- 

 phyllum, Sapindophyllum, etc., some of 

 which are probal)ly specifically identical 

 with forms descrilied by Newberry, and it 

 is altogether probable that if the post- 

 humous work of Dr. Newberry, now in 

 press, had been in the hands of the present 

 author a large numl)er of the species would 

 have been identified with American forms. 



I will only notice one other significant 

 fact. In the Cenomauian beds which over- 

 lie these last, as it would seem uncouform- 

 ably, but which may not be so widely 

 separated from them as has been supposed, 

 there occui-s a large elongated leaf which 

 tlie Marquis has called Chondrophyton lace- 

 ratum. It agrees only in its finer nervation 

 with C. dimedum Sap. and Mar., the only 

 other species.* It has a very delicate 

 nervation with small polygonal meshes, and 

 an entire paryphodrome margin, but the 

 remarkable fact is that it seems to have a 

 deeply refuse summit. It is evident that 

 from the specimen the author was unable 

 to make this latter out with certainty ; but 

 he has drawn the marginal lines so as dis- 

 tinctly to indicate it. So desirous was he 

 that this leaf siiould be correctly repre- 

 sented that he has given us two interi)re- 

 tations from drawings made at dift'erent 

 times, figs. 4, 5 of pi. xxxviii. He states 

 that he considers figure 5 to represent the 

 form better than figure 4 : and it is in this 



*L. Evolution du Hi'jine Vt'getal. Par i^porta et 

 Marion. Les Phaiu'rofnimcs, Vol. II., Pari.s, 1885, p. 

 120, fig. 126. 



