270 OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 
are allied to Jurassic species, but when we come to the Rhetic we find 
7 identical with, and 8 others closely related to, typical Rhetic forms. 
The evidence of Rhetic age is therefore very strong. The results of 
this table are then analyzed and thoroughly discussed, and from the 
data here presented and from other sources he arrives at the following 
general conclusion : 
European authors, and especially Schimper, often call attention to the strong 
resemblance between the Rheetic and Lower Jurassic floras, the likeness to the flora 
of the Lower Oolite of England being especially striking. In accordance with this 
fact, the presence of a marked Jurassic element in the flora of these Mesozoic beds, 
both in North Carolina and Virginia, is of itself an evidence that they can not be 
older than Rhetic. We are, then, I think, entitled to consider that the older Mesozoic 
flora of North Carolina and Virginia is most probably Rheetic in age, and certainly 
not older (p. 128). 
The letter of M. R. Zeiller to Mr. Jules Marcou, published in the 
paper to which reference was made (supra, p. 264), contains a remark 
which it is appropriate to quote here in connection with Dr. Emmons’s 
determinations and Professor Fontaine’s conclusions drawn from the 
original figures. M. Zeiller says: . 
In studying the excellent figures of Emmons, very roughly reproduced by Fontaine, 
I have been led to contest several of the attributions and determinations of the latter, 
more especially about the Albertia, which Fontaine wants to make an Otozamites. 
The Albertia latifolia of Emmons is certainly an Albertia related to both Alb. latifolia 
and Alb. Brauni; and until now all the Albertize have been found in Europe in the 
Buntersandstein or Lower Trias. ! 
It is interesting to know that the original specimen was found in the 
collection at Williamstown, redescribed and refigured by Professor 
Fontaine, who adheres to his formerly expressed opinion that the plant 
‘is certainly not an Albertia,” comparing it with Otozanvites Beanti 
(L. and H.) Brongn. (see infra, pp. 298, 299, Pl. XLII, Figs. 5, 6). 
Professor Fontaine stated in the beginning of this revision’ that 
on inquiry he had learned ‘‘that Dr. Emmons’s collections of plants 
were destroyed during the late war,” and it was supposed that none of 
his specimens were in existence, but in the spring of 1890 a collection, 
long ago received by the Smithsonian Institution from Mr. Isaac Lea, 
of Philadelphia, consisting chiefly of shells, was examined by Prof. 
William H. Dall and found to contain a few fossil plants, which were 
turned over by him to the department of fossil plants of the National 
Museum, and thus came into my hands. Among these plants, most of 
which were from the Newcastle coal fields of England, were several 
specimens that Dr. Emmons had.sent to Mr. Lea from North Carolina, 
and with them was a letter from the former to the latter, dated July 12, 
1856, mentioning these plants, and setting forth some of the conclu- 
sions to which a study of the coal fields of the State had led him. The 
plants bore provisional names, but it was thought best that they be 
1Am, Geologist, Vol. V, 1890, p. 172. 
2Mon. U. §. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, 1883, p. 97. 
