Maryland Geological Survey 437 



This species was described by Dunker in 1846 as a species of Muscites, 

 Brongniart in 1849 substituting Juniperites as a more appropriate 

 generic name, one subsequently changed to Araucarites by Ettingshausen. 

 Schimper referred this species to Widdringtonites, but since 1871 it has 

 been rather consistently referred to as Sphenolepis, or Splienolepidiutn 

 Sternbergianum ; although the difficulty of dealing satisfactorily with 

 various detached coniferous twigs of similar habit is no small one, not 

 only from their similar appearance in various unallied species but also 

 because of their resistance of decay and retention of their leaves when 

 reduced to fragments, so that they are often the most abundant remains 

 in coarse sediments. 



Sphenolepis 8ternbergiana has an equally wide range, both geographic 

 and geologic, as has the preceding species. It is common in the Wealden 

 of England and G-ermany and is recorded by Saporta from the ISTeoco- 

 mian, Barremian, and Albian of Portugal, a range similar to that which 

 it shows in the Maryland- Virginia area. It is probably represented in 

 the Kome beds of Greenland by Sequoia gracilis Heer while the latter 

 author's Olyptostrohus groenlandicus ^ and Sequoia fastigiata from these 

 beds also suggest this species. It is recorded from the Glen Eose 

 (Trinity) beds of Texas and from the Horsetown beds of the Pacific 

 Coast. The form from the Upper Cretaceous of Marthas Vineyard which 

 Hollick has identified as Sequoia gracilis Heer is also similar enough to 

 be suggestive. The present species is very abundant in the Potomac Group 

 ranging from the bottom to the top. 



The specimens of SpJienolepis' Sterndergiana from the Wealden of 

 Ecclesbourne in possession of the writer, are much stouter than the 

 American conifer usually identified as this species and resemble rather 

 closely what in America goes by the name of Sequoia ambigua Heer, a 

 resemblance already commented on by Seward (Wealden Fl. pt. ii, p. 

 206, 1895) ; since, however, the preservation is poor, too much impor- 

 tance cannot be attached to a resemblance which may be purely super- 

 ficial, although in the opinion of the writer it seems probable that some 



^Heer, Fl. Foss. Arct., Band iii, Abth. ii, p. 76, pi. xvii, fig. 9; pi. xx, figs. 

 9, 10. 



