392 Systematic Paleontology 



tlie forms of Brachyphyllum are referable to the Taxodiege while others 

 have an aflOnity with the Araucariese. Saporta^ figures elliptical 

 Walchia-like cones which he found associated with Brachyphyllum 

 jauberti, gracile, and moreauanum in the French Jurassic, while Heer* 

 describes and figures spherical cones with polygonal scales attached 

 to twigs of his Brachyphyllum insigne from the Lower Oolite of Siberia, 

 and other records of a very similar nature might be mentioned. Fontaine 

 has recorded three obscure varieties of small cones from the Potomac 

 beds along the James Eiver in Virginia which he refers to Brachy- 

 phyllum.^ They are very indefinite and poorly preserved and are all 

 probably of a single species. They resemble somewhat the cones which 

 Saporta refers to this genus and may be correctly identified, but this 

 is doubtful. Finally Hollick and Jeffrey have rendered it extremely 

 probable* that the widespread coniferous scales of the mid-Cretaceous 

 referred to Dammara are related to Brachyphyllum and these authors 

 have proved, at least in the species formerly known as Dammara micro- 

 lepis Heer from Staten Island, a relation to twigs of the Brachyphyllum 

 type, which relationship would seem to effectually disprove the identity 

 of the cones described by Newberry. 



Leafy branches and twigs very similar in appearance to those of 

 Brachyphyllum in which, however, the leaves are less thick and more 

 free and pointed are referred to the genus Echinostrohus which was 

 founded by Schimper in 1872 for four or five Jurassic species of conifers, 

 and it is to this Jurassic genus that Velenovsky refers two species from 

 the Cenomanian of Bohemia,' although these latter are both practically 

 identical with Brachyphyllum macrocarpum Newb. from the nearly 

 homotaxial American horizons. 



^ Saporta, Plantes Jurassiques, tome iii, 1884, pp. 341, 349, 365, pi. clxv, figs. 

 1, 2; pi. clxvii, fig. 2; pi. clxxi, figs. 5-9. 



= Heer, Fl. Foss. Arct., Bd. iv, Ab. ii, 1876, p. 75, pi. xiii, fig. 9. 



^Fontaine, Men. U. S. Geol. Surv., vol. xv, 1890, pp. 223, 224, pi. cxxxv, figs. 

 8, 9; pi. clxviii, fig. 2. 



* Hollick and Jeffrey, Amer. Nat., vol. xl, 1906, p. 200. 



= Velenovsky, Gym. bohm. Kreidef., 1885, p. 16, pi. vi, figs. 3, 6-8; Kvetena 

 ■eeskeho cenomanu, 1889, p. 9, pi. i, figs. 11-19; pi. ii, figs. 1, 2. 



