TRIASSIC 609 



In 1899 Solms-Laiibach^ reported on a much larger collection from the 

 same locality. He Avas able to enumerate about a dozen genera, but did 

 *iiot give specific names to all. They were still considered to be of Rhcetic 

 age. 



About the same time that the discovery of Triassic plants was made in 

 Chile, plants presumed to be of the same age came to light in i^rgentina. 

 They were first reported on by Geinitz/ in 1876. He enumerated 14 

 species, referred to 12 genera. Only one or two of the forms are identical 

 with those described from Chile. 



A few years later Szajnoche^ described a small flora of 11 species, re- 

 ferred to 8 genera, from Cachenta, in the Province of Mendoza. Only two 

 species appear to be identical with those described by Geinitz. Szajnoche 

 compares this flora with beds of similar age in Queensland, New South 

 Wales, India, Germany, and Bjuf, in Sweden. It does not appear that 

 any of the Argentinian forms are identified with North American species. 



From this hasty review it must be very evident that the data are lack- 

 ing for an adequate comparison of the Triassic floras of North, Central, 

 and South America. The localities are few, are often separated by thou- 

 sands of miles, and, moreover, there is still more or less doubt in some 

 cases as to their position. 



JUKASSIC 



No Jurassic floras are at present known from eastern North America. 

 From western North America — principally California, Oregon, and 

 Alaska — about 125 species have been recognized. Of these, two locali- 

 ties — Kadiack Island and the Matanuska Valley, Alaska — with about a 

 dozen species each, are referred to the Lias, and the remainder are re- 

 ferred to the Middle and Upper Jurassic. The latter find their close 

 parallel with the well known Jurassic floras of eastern Asia. 



Within the past year two small floras thought to be of Liassic age have 

 been described by Lozano^ from the States of Vera Cruz and Puebla, 

 Mexico. Although certain of the forms described are seemingly abundant 



■^ H. Grafen, Solras-Laubach : Zu Beschribung der Pflanzenreste v. La Ternera. Neues 

 Jahrb., Beilage, vol. 12, 1899, pp. 593-609, pis. 13, 14. 



« H. B. Geinitz : Ueber Rhatische Pflanzen-und Thierreste in den argentinisclien Prov- 

 inzen La Rioja, San Juan und Mendoza. Palffiontographica, Suppl. 3, 1876, pp. 1-14, 

 pis. 1, 2. 



■f L. Szajnoche : iJber fossile Pflanzenreste aus Cachenta in der argentinischen Repnb- 

 lik, Sitzr. d. Akad. wiss. Wien, vol. 97, 1888, pp. 1-20, pis. 1, 2. 



8 B. D. Lozano : Description de unos plantas Liasicas de Huayacocotla, Ver., Algunas 

 plantas de la flora Liasica de Hiiauchinango, Pueb. Bol. Inst, geologico de Mexico no 

 34, 1916, pp. 1-18, pis. i-ix. 



