Dr. J. 8. Newberry on Ancient Vegetation of N. America. 211 
The vindication of his accuracy may, doubtless, be safely left 
toStiehler. At least it would be nothing short of arrogance 
for any one who had not before him a suite of the specimens 
mpared by Stiehler, to review his work and pronounce it 
either erroneous or correct. 
th. The statement that aside from the so-called Credneria 
and Hitingshausenia, all the genera enumerated in my letter to 
. Meek and Hayden, are represented in the Tertiary and 
notin the Cretaceous, is at least surprising. I am almost in- 
clined to infer from it that Prof. Heer, though confessedly the 
highest authority in reference to the Tertiary flora of Europe, 
oat to acquaint himself fully with that of the Creta- 
ceous formation. He makes the statement doubtless in good 
faith, but he can hardly have seen Stiehler’s paper on the Cre- 
taceous plants of Blankenburg, and if he has not seen that he is 
certainly not yet prepared to discuss intelligently the claims of 
_ Atingshausenia to be recognized as a good genus; nor indeed 
_ the Cretaceous flora in any of its aspects. 
Whoever will take the trouble to examine Stiehler’s paper 
\Paleontographica, 1857) will see in the enumeration of plants 
found in the Lower Cretaceous strata (Quader sandstein) Popu- 
ke, Acer, and several other genera which Prof. Heer says 
are Tepresented in the Tertiary but not in the Cretaceous. 
‘he fossil flora of Blankenburg is indeed strikingly like that 
of our Lower Cretaceous formation, from which the plants that 
Siven rise to this discussion have been derived, except that 
ous 18 more varied, and we have as yet found no palms or 
5th. Th regard to the probability or otherwise that the Creta- 
the ae of America should contain a flora similar to that of 
ertiary, it may be said, that it is not now a question of 
babilities but of fact, the evidence of the case being now be- 
That and in abundance. 
plan What has heretofore been written in reference to these fossil 
ear great questions have been raised, Ist, as to their bo- 
As: affinities, 24, as to their geological position. 
o their botanical relations—outline sketches of a few of 
plants have been examined by Prof. Heer. By him they 
”, Populus Laurus tacites. Phyllit minosites, &e. 
* ’ : Sapo A yuiites, Leqgum ? ’ 
mi'were pronounced Lower Miocene: asec 
4 *ntire collection was placed in my hands for examination 
toon te Ption before I knew that Prof. Heer had been written 
‘ bint’ subject. J supposed I found among them Lariodendron, 
Pez! yes Populus, Platanus, Pyrus, &¢., with the Cretaceous 
Reeons 
a and Hitingshausenia and considered them Cre- 
That you may see on what evidence that opinion was 
