Liriodendron in the Miocene of America and Eastern Asia 



Edward W. Berry 



More or less complete accounts of the geological history of the 

 Tulip tree (Liriodendron) have been frequently attempted and 

 a fairly detailed summary (1) was presented in 1923, but "time 

 marches on" and discovery is not halted by the publication of a 

 book, in fact, quite the reverse is true. In particular the last few 

 years have seen various gaps in the record closed, especially in 

 the Tertiary of western North America. My jfirst scientific paper, 

 published in 1896, was on the leaves of Liriodendron and the varia- 

 tions in the leaves of our existing species of the eastern United 

 States has been an annual pleasure. 



Liriodendron was abundant and varied in the upper Cretaceous 

 of the western interior of North America, but no indubitable records 

 of Tertiary age from this continent have been available until re- 

 cently. It is true that Chaney ascribed a leaf fragment (2) from the 

 Eagle Creek formation to this genus in 1920 but this record, 

 although probably correct, lacks conclusiveness ; and the same may 

 be said of another fragmentary specimen from the upper Eocene oV 

 British Columbia which I recorded (3) in 1926. In 1929, however, 

 I published an account (4) of a Miocene species — Liriodendron hes- 

 peria from the Latah Miocene formation of the State of Wash- 

 ington. This was based upon perfect characteristic carpels which 

 are essentially modern in their features. More recently Brown has 

 figured additional carpels from this same locality together with 

 a fragmentary leaf (5). 



Among the Latah Miocene materials remaining in my hands 

 are several specimens of carpels from the type locality and a leaf 

 fragment from the Latah at Vera a few miles distant. 



The latter is not especially like the leaf fragment which Brown 

 figured from the Spokane locality, but having in mind the well- 

 known variation in the leaves of the existing species it seems im- 

 probable that more than a single species was represented in Latah 

 time. 



The question will perhaps arise in the mind of some starry eyed 

 botanist lacking a chronological sense why these Miocene leaves 

 are not specifically identical with the existing species? and the 

 answer is, or so it seems to me, that they could be, only you would 

 be faced with the insuperable difficulty, at least to me, of consider- 



82 



