1915] BURLINGAM E—ARAUCARIANS 93 
The second proof brought forward in support of this conclusion 
is that the triassic Araucarites moniliforme (34) is reported to have 
strings of flattened moniliform masses of resin in the wood. The 
author thinks that such masses of resin would be produced by resin 
canals larger than those of Brachyphyllum. Apparently there is 
a reduction series in resin production in the Araucarineae. It is 
abundantly secreted in the canals of the triassic Araucarites, less 
abundantly in those of the cretaceous Brachyphyllum and only 
when wounded, and resin canals are entirely absent in living genera. 
As a third proof a still stronger claim is made again for the 
antiquity of the pines. The author points to the recognized 
impressions of pine leaves from the Permian onward, of hard and 
soft pines after the Jurassic, and of Pityoxyla from the Carbonifer- 
ous and Permian. It should be recalled that both the Permian 
and Carboniferous Pityoxyla have since been rendered extremely 
doubtful by the work of GoTHAN (21, 22) and of THomson and 
ALLIN (71), though undoubted Pityoxyla are known from the late 
Jurassic onward. 
Araucariopitys was described (35) in 1907. The description is 
based on certain leafless twigs with spirally arranged scars. They 
were found in the Androvette pit (Cretaceous) in association with 
“impressions of the deciduous leaf fascicles of Czekanowskia, a 
supposed but doubtful representative of the Ginkgoales.” It is 
inferred, with some hesitation, that the two belong to the same 
Plant. It is shown that Araucariopitys had deciduous spur shoots 
lasting, very probably, only a single year. Traumatic resin canals 
were produced; the ray cells are pitted on sides and ends; the pits 
are usually uniseriate, round, and remote, but may occasionally be 
biseriate and alternate or opposite, in which case they are some- 
times flattened. The uniseriate pits are also sometimes flattened 
and in contact. It is rather difficult to credit close araucarian 
affinities to this plant when one considers that it resembles a 
Ginkgo externally and has the spur shoot and pitted rays of the 
pines, as opposed to the slight resemblance to araucarians in the 
Occasional occurrence of alternate and flattened pits. The authors, 
however, decide in favor of its being an araucarian on the ground of 
its close association with other araucarian woods and transitional 
