274 Scientific Intelligence. 
great learning and of world-wide reputation, and, I am sure, would be 
one of the last to ask us to believe a scientific statement simply because 
de it. 
(3.) In my letter I made no supposition in reference to the Tertiary 
flora of Kentucky, Tennessee or Mississippi. merely stated some 
cence 
the Mississippi even higher than stated by Mr. Lesquereux. ex- 
cluded them from “ the central portion of the continent ;” by this mean- 
ing, as I then explained, the region between the Mississippi and the 
Sierra Nevada. Here, too, the evidence is negative, but now stands just 
as I represented it. 
5.) Mr. Lesquereux says: “I cannot admit, as Dr. Newberry appears 
to do, that the fossil flora of the American Cretaceous, ought to be 
closely related to the European.” My only reference to this question 
will be found on page 216 (Journal, March, 1860), where I say—" We 
flora of that period more closely to that of Europe, but, so fer as at 
sou known, our plants of this age present an ensemble quite dif- 
erent. 
(6.) The statement made by Mr. Lesquereux that “ the age of the 
strata from which American fossil plants have been taken is mostly uD 
certain,” is manifestly incorrect. At least nine-tenths of the species 
enumerated are from the Carboniferous and Devonian rocks, W 
place in the geological series is certainly well ascertained. Of those 
00 
everything that has been published in reference to fossil plants ' ac- 
the extinct flores of Europe and America can only be made by means 
of full collections of well-marked specimens, many more than we yet 
possess 
Mr. Lesquereux is aware, as is every one who has given the subject 
any attention, that our knowledge of the flore of the different geolog 
cal formations has been limited, not so much by the want of learning 
acuteness in the cultivators of fossil botany, as by the small num 
and imperfect preservation of the fossil plants collected. It could hardly 
