+ 
WARD.] THE VIRGINIA AREA. 263 
cause us to regard it as at least Lower Liassic in age. I think that it is fully as much 
entitled to be regarded as of Liassic age as is the flora of the Rajamahal group of 
India. Feistmantel and Zigno think that the age of this group is that of the Lias. 
Taking everything into consideration, the flora of the older Mesozoic of Virginia is, 
of the European floras, nearest to that of Theta, near Baireuth, in Franconia (p. 96). 
Some authors hold that the Rheetic beds form the uppermost of the Triassic strata. 
Others think that they are transition beds, having more affinity with the Lower Lias. 
The latter view will, I think, be justified by a study of the flora, and I have, in this 
memoir, assumed its correctness (p. 128). j 
This important work of Professor Fontaine’s especially attracted 
the attention of the late distinguished directcr of the Austrian Geo- 
logical Survey, D. Stur, who -had found at a place called Lunz, in 
Austria, a deposit yielding fossil plants having a very remarkable 
resemblance to those of the Virginia flora. Unable to satisfy himself 
with sufficient certainty by the study of the figures and descriptions 
of Professor Fontaine, Director Stur made application to Professor 
Fontaine and received, through the intervention of the United States 
Geological Survey, a good series of specimens of the Virginia fossils.’ 
In the Proceedings of the Geological Survey of Austria, published in 
1888, Director Stur gave a brief account! of the results of his com- 
parisons of the Virginia plants with those of Lunz. The general con- 
clusion is that they are identical in age, many of the species being the 
same. But Stur regards the Lunz flora as Keuper and not Rhetic, 
and as nearly equivalent to that of Raibl and Stuttgart. He had 
arrived at this conclusion by a preliminary study already given to the 
flora of Lunz.? 
This paper, as he admits, was only a Prodromus, and contains sim- 
ply a list of the genera and species in systematic order, but no descrip- 
tions or figures. It bears date 1885, or two years later than Professor 
Fontaine’s monograph. Therefore it is obvious that all Stur could do 
under the recognized laws of nomenclature would be to accept Pro- 
fessor Fontaine’s species and genera in so far as they were new and 
identical with those of Lunz; although, of course, he would be author- 
ized to point out any error in determination tending to show that Pro- 
fessor Fontaine had erroneously identified any of his plants with those 
of other deposits in Europe or elsewhere, or to show that any of his 
new species were not such, but were identical with species already 
described. We are therefore surprised to find that in a number of 
cases, as for example Speirocarpus, Heeria, etc., Stur created new 
genera of his own, and undertook ata later date to substitute them 
for the genera of Professor Vontaine. This, it is clear, can not be 
allowed by the laws of nomenclature. Pseudodaneopsis-and Merten- 
sides must stand and the Lunz plants be placed in them. 
1Die Lunzer- (Lettenkohlen-) Flora in den ‘Older Mesozoic Beds of the Coal Field of Eastern 
Virginia,’ von D. Stur: Verhandl. k.- k. geol. Reichsanstalt, Wien, Jabrg. 1888, pp. 203-217. 
2 Die obertriadische Flora der Lunzer-Schichten und des bitumindsen Schiefers yon Raibl, von D. 
Stur: Sitzungsber. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl., Vol. CXI, 1885, pp. 93-108. 
