June 8, 1900.] 



SCIENCE. 



899 



The idea has gained currency that the 

 Carboniferous fossil plants of the Mississippi 

 valley are most meagei'ly represented. The 

 present note endeavors to point out that 

 this widespread notion is wholly erroneous. 

 In vastness, in great variety, in extensive 

 geological range, in completeness of generic 

 representation, in wealth of anatomical ma- 

 terial, the fossil tloras of the region are be- 

 lieved to have but few equals. 



There are several reasons for the appar- 

 ent paucity of plant remains in the beds of 

 the coal measures. The preservation of 

 the plants is confined almost entirely to the 

 clay shales and shally sandstones. These 

 readily break down under ordinary weather- 

 ing influences into soft clays. The most 

 prolific plant bed may be thus destroyed, 

 giving scarcely a sign of its organic con- 

 tent. Even in coal mines the oblitera- 

 tion of whatever fossils exist goes on so 

 rapidly that fossil ferns usually fail to at- 

 tract notice. Only when the perfectly fresh 

 shales are exploited purposely for their fos- 

 sils can they be made to give up their 

 botanical records. 



Many plant remains are preserved or re- 

 placed by iron pyrite and quickly decom- 

 posed on exposure. The finest structures, 

 displaying anatomical features in the great- 

 est perfection, are frequently in this con- 

 dition ; but it is only when in the fresh 

 state that outlines and markings of the 

 cells are capable of being studied with satis- 

 faction. 



Probably the greatest drawback to the 

 acquirement of a complete knowledge of 

 the fossil floras is the lack of interest shown 

 by local collectors. Few fossil gatherers 

 give any attention whatever to the plants. 

 The Paleobotanists are not given to mak- 

 ing systematic collections themselves, but 

 study only those scattered chance specimens 

 in cabinets devoted to other fossil forms. 

 As a result we have no complete plant col- 

 lections. 



From the paleontological literature we 

 get only a faint glimpse of the Trans-Missis- 

 sippian flora. Outside of a few isolated 

 references the only account of an extensive 

 flora is that of Lesquereux, whose material 

 was obtained by Dr. G. H. Britts, of Clin- 

 ton, Mo. The Britts' collections have been 

 studied anew by David White, whose re- 

 cent excellent monograph on the Fossil 

 Plants of Missouri shows only too clearly 

 how prolific may be the coal plants of a 

 single locality and of a single horizon. No 

 indication, however, is given regarding the 

 vast possibilities of this coal district as a 

 field for systematic exploitation along paleo- 

 botanic lines. 



.Attention is called in the monograph to 

 some of the obstacles to accuracy in cor- 

 relation and especially to the lack of stan- 

 dard paleobotanic sections. If ever there 

 were opportunity of establishing a standard 

 section it is in the Trans-Mississippian 

 coal field. Plant remains occur abundantly 

 in many localities and at many horizons, 

 extending from the very base of Des 

 Moines series, up through Missourian, into 

 the so-called Permian. The monograph on 

 the Missouri fossil floras considers chiefly 

 one locality and one horizon. In Missouri 

 alone there are no less than 150 known 

 localities and 30 horizons for coal plants. 

 In Iowa there are nearly as many more. 

 Kansas likewise ofi'ers an equally inviting 

 field. If a single location yields up such 

 prodigious possibilities as Mr. White has 

 demonstrated what may we not expect from 

 the rest of the field ? 



Of Missouri localities furnishing fossil 

 plants, Rich Hill, Kansas City, Lexington, 

 Versailles, Huntsville, Macon and Moberly 

 afibrd especially attractive fields for early 

 exploration. Exceptional opportunities for 

 the construction of standard paleobotanic 

 sections are offered in the west-central part 

 of the State. These are easily made in a 

 direction east from Kansas City, along the 



