416 PROCEEDINGS OF MONTREAL MEETING. , 
some other fragments examined with great care by paleontologists in Philadelphia 
and Washington, who agree in identifying the form as the one above named. As 
the boring was made by the jetting process, I think that the shell fragments may 
have fallen from a higher stratum before the well casing was pushed down. It 
seems improbable that this fossil could be found so much deeper at this point than 
we should be led to expect it from the depth of the older Hvogyra in the Norfolk 
and Lamberts Point borings, only a few miles east and up the gentle slope of the 
very low dip. 
It is alleged that a boring at North End Point, six miles north-northeast from 
Fort Monroe, was sunk to a depth of 1,172 feet to ‘‘ bed rock,” but I could only ob- 
tain a general list of materials penetrated. The data were not sufficiently definite 
to even suggest the stratigraphic position of the beds, unless possibly the Potomac 
formation at the bottom. When the Norfolk boring is completed I will publish a 
somewhat detailed account of the formations which were penetrated and make a 
brief review of the bearing of the new data on coastal plain stratigraphy in south- 
eastern Virginia. 
Following the reading of the above paper the Society was adjourned — 
for lunch. At 2.80 o’clock the Society reconvened and the following 
paper was read by the junior author: 
THE CRETACEOUS SERIES OF THE WEST COAST OF GREENLAND 
BY CHARLES SCHUCHERT AND DAVID WHITE 
Remarks were made by W. B. Scottand T. C. Chamberlin. The paper 
is printed as pages 343-368 of this volume. 
In the absence of the author the following note was read by the Sec- 
retary : 
NOTE ON LEPIDOPHLOIOS CLIFTONENSIS 
BY SIR WILLIAM DAWSON 
In the bulletin of this Society for May, 1891, appeared a paper by the author on 
Fossils from the Carboniferous of Newfoundland, including new species of Lepi- 
dodendron (L. murrayanum). In connection with this species I noticed what seemed 
aclosely allied form from New Brunswick, which I had named L. cliftonense. Later 
studies of this species have shown me that it should rather be placed in the allied 
genus Lepidophloios. I have so placed it in a more recent paper on that genus in 
the present year. It should therefore be named Lepidophioios cliftonensis, but is 
one of the species of that genus nearest to Lepidodendron, and especially to my 
L. murrayanum and to L. worthent of Lesquereux, as I have already stated in the 
paper to which this note is an addendum and erratum. 
Remarks upon this note and upon the great work in paleobotany of 
Sir William Dawson were made by David White. 
