176 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [FEBRUARY 
either by a slightly different environment or by their having come 
from a somewhat different level. The dumps from which collec- 
tions were made represent two openings: the eastermost of which 
is a slope mine following the dip of the 6-foot seam which comes 
rather close to the surface near the entrance; the westermost, 200 
yards away, known as the Engine Hill mine, is a shaft which was 
said to strike the same 6-foot seam at a depth of 250 feet, but 
which was not being worked at the time of the writer’s visit. Neo- 
calamites virginiensis (Fontaine), as it should be called, was col- 
lected from the eastern dump, where it was associated with vast 
numbers of fronds of Macrotaeniopteris magnifolia (Rogers) Schim- 
per, and with the equally abundant stem remains of large and small 
specimens of Equisetum and very rare fern fragments, the whole 
constituting a typical triassic swamp assemblage. 
In the flora associated with the new species of Neocalamites 
the remains of Equisetum were almost entirely absent, Macrotaeni- 
opteris was not seen, and ferns and cycadophytes greatly predom- 
inated. The pinnules of the enormous S phenozamites Rogersianus 
Fontaine were often packed together in solid masses, among which 
some nearly complete fronds were collected. Clathropteris was 
common and some of the specimens were remarkably complete. 
The fern genera identified by FoNTAINE as Acrostichides, Mer- 
tensides, etc., were abundant, and various Ctenis-like and Piero- 
phyllum forms were collected. Sparingly represented were those 
curious forms described by Emmons (1) over 50 years ago from the 
North Carolina Triassic area under the name Lepacycloies. 
Emmons (1) described two species in 1856 as Lepacyclotes 
ellipticus and L. circularis. These were discussed by FONTAINE (2) 
in 1883 in his monograph of the Virginia Triassic. At that time he 
considered them as probably representing a single species of crushed 
cone closely allied to Araucaria, and they were renamed by him 
Araucarites carolinensis. In returning to the same subject in 
1900, after the rediscovery of the Emmons’ collection, he abandons 
this view and returns to Emmons’ names, his final opinion being 
that the disklike forms represent Equisetum diaphragms, and the 
scalelike forms fragments of Equisetum stems (8). I am not in a 
position to discuss the first assumption, since I have not seen the 
