68 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JULY 
Japan. Only in rare instances were the authors able to make out the external 
form of the material studied, and in no case do they seem to have been able to 
correlate it with the extremely abundant-cretaceous genera known from impres- 
sions. To this initial disadvantage is added a not entirely satisfactory familiarity 
with the anatomical structure of living angiosperms and conifers. The eighteen 
species described as new in the memoir are consequently in some cases not really 
new, since they represent the parts of plants already known from impressions and 
recently identified structurally by American paleobotanists. In other instances 
the anatomical characterization is too vague and indefinite for subsequent use. 
In spite of these drawbacks, the memoir under discussion must rank as one of 
the most important recent contributions on the cretaceous flora, and it is much 
to be desired that the authors may be able to continue their investigations as they 
promise to do. 
Of the eighteen species described, four are cryptogamic, one being a fungus 
and three others ferns. An interesting cycad-like leaf, Niponophyllum, is described 
which differs from the leaf structure of living cycads in the complete absence of 
centrifugal wood, all the xylem being of the cryptogamic centripetal type. 
ther gymnosperms described, the most interesting is Yezonia, which 
is considered by the authors to represent a new genus, and of which they state 
‘it is impossible to find any family among the gymnosperms with which we can 
satisfactorily include this plant.” This view of the matter will hardly stand, 
since in every detail of eli it corresponds absolutely with Brachyphyllum, 
e commonest conifer of the later Mesozoic, which, moreover, on anatomical 
grounds n recognized recently as an araucarian conifer. Another gymno- 
spermous branch is also described under the new generic name Cryptomeriopsts. 
Of this it may be stated that the description given of its internal organization by 
the Anglo-Japanese authors parallels with fidelity, so far as it goes, that of Geinit- 
sia Reichenbachi, recently described structurally from the North American Cre- 
taceous. Two imperfect coniferous cones are likewise characterized, Yezostrobus 
and Cunninghamiostrobus. One Araucarioxylon and two species of Cedroxylon 
complete the list of coniferous remains. 
Either as the result of a bad condition of abet or a failure to realize 
clearly the importance of detailed description, four angiospermous ligneous 
genera, all considered to be new (Jugloxylon, Pajudoesie Fagoxylon, Sabio- 
caulis), are insufficiently characterized. The detailed structure of the rays, the 
preservation, the woods are scarcely worth publishing. The genus Saururopsis 
is somewhat more clearly characterized. One genus (Cretovarium) representing 
a tricarpellary ovary is likewise described, but as the accompanying vegetative 
organs and even any considerable part of the floral apparatus itself are absent, 
it seems impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to its affinities. 
One curious and unfortunate omission throughout the memoir is the almost com- 
. 
