504 Systematic Paleontology 



In the absence of more representative material, that already known 

 being very poor, no definite result is possible, although the writer is 

 inclined to consider Ficophyllum as being referable to the Gnetales, 

 which were certainly more abundant in the Mesozoic than has ever been 

 suspected. The fact that true dicotyledonous leaves from the Patapsco 

 formation have been confused with these earlier forms by Fontaine has 

 served to effectually complicate the whole question. As a matter of 

 fact all of the specimens, except some doubtfully determined fragments 

 from the Arundel formation in Maryland, come from the basal Potomac 

 of Virginia, i. e., from near the base of the Patuxent formation. The 

 fact that some authors use the ending phyllum for all fossil repr^enta- 

 tives of existing genera should not be understood, in the present case 

 as indicating that any relationship with Ficus is implied by the reten- 

 tion of Fontaine's generic name. In the absence of positive data regard- 

 ing the afiinity of these forms Ficophyllum has been allowed to stand 

 since no good could possibly result from an arbitrary change of name. 



FiGOPHYLLun SERRATUM Fontaine 



Ficophyllum serratum Fontaine, 1890, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. xv, 

 1889, p. 294, pi. cxlv, fig. 2; pi. cxllx, fig. 9 (non Fontaine, 1899). 



Quercophyllum tenuinerve Fontaine, 1890, Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. xv, 

 1889, p. 308, pi. exlix, figs. 6, 7. 



? Quercophyllum tenuinerve Fontaine, 1906, in "Ward, Mon. U. S. Geol. 

 Survey, vol. xlviii, 1905, p. 521, 



Description. — " Leaves of moderate size, strongly serrate-toothed, 

 teeth often irregular in size, sometimes double, acute, and directed for- 

 wards; shape of the leaf not fully disclosed, but apparently elliptical; 

 midnerve proportionately very strong, lateral or primary nerves very 

 slender, not fully disclosed, but apparently forming by the union of the 

 branches of the primary nerves irregular large meshes; ultimate nerva- 

 tion not seen.'^— Fontaine, 1890. 



This species was based upon very rare and indecisive fragments of 

 the apical part of leaves whose botanical affinity is entirely unknown. 

 Those equally rare fragments of the basal part of similarly toothed leaves 

 from the same locality described as a species of Quercophyllum tefiuinerve 



