Ward] TRIASSIC FLORA OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 2438 
teniopteris magnifolia.. This form, in the segmentation of the leaf, is strikingly sug- 
gestive of a large Pterophyllum, and it most resembles P. princeps Oldh. and Morr., of 
the Rajmahal flora of India, showing’ the same variation in: the width of the segments 
and the same dimensions. As, however, there is only one specimen, it is possible 
that it is a leaf of Macroteniopteris magnifolia that has by accident been segmented in 
this manner. I have collected many hundred specimens of M. magnifolia from the 
Older Mesozoic of Virginia and have never seen a case of a leaf lacerated by acci- 
dent that was so suggestive as this. It should be stated also that Emmons mentions 
seeing in the flora of the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina supposed leaves of M. mag- 
nifolia that were so regularly segmented that they attracted his attention as being 
possibly not that plant. They may well have been some forms similar to this from 
York. 
Genus CTENOPHYLLUM Schimper. 
CTENOPHYLLUM GRANDIFOLIUM Fontaine. 
Pl. X XVII. 
1883. Ctenophyllum grandifolium Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. 8. 
Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 73, pl. xxxix, figs. 1, la, 2, 3, 3a; pl. xl; pl. xli; 
pl. xlii, fig. 1. 
This specimen was accurately determined and figured by Mr. 
Wanner. After looking over the collection Professor Fontaine says: 
Mr. Wanner has several very good specimens of this plant, and gives some good 
figures of it. 
Mr. Wanner’s notes are as follows: 
The leaf, three separated parts of which are shown in Figs. 1, 2,3, Pl. XX VII, is very 
fragmentary. One and two closely associated with three in the matrix, the impres- 
sions being in the same piece ofshale, probably belong to the same leaf and are so 
considered. Only parts of the leaflets remain extending to varying distances from 
the rachis, in all cases without tips. After a slight expansion they are attached 
throughout their entire width to the rachis. Immediately beyond the midrib some 
of the leaflets are narrowest, from whence they gradually expand. Two of the long- 
est segments at lengtH attain a uniform width, for which reason the same peculiarity 
is assumed to be a characteristic of the leaf. 
In this specimen it is difficult to determine whether only some or all of the nerves 
fork shortly after leaving the rachis, as shown in Fig. 5, a magnified portion of a 
leaflet. The nerves are close, about one-third of a millimeter apart, and parallel; in 
this specimen they can not be resolved into two nerve strands, a property to which 
Fontaine calls attention. 
Locality.—N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven. 
CreNnoPpHYLLUM WANNERIANUM Fontaine n. sp. 
Pl, SRVIEL, Fig. 1. 
This was supposed by Mr. Wanner to represent Ctenophyllum 
Braunianum var. « of Goppert, but Professor Fontaine says: 
This is a new species of Ctenophyllum, allied to C. Braunianum. The specimen 
figured by Mr. Wanner is a fine one. There is in his collection a smaller fragment 
