WARD.] THE NORTH CAROLINA AREA. 271 
sent to Professor Fontaine for his inspection. This was done, and I 
introduce here his report upon them, as some of the results are impor- 
tant, and no better opportunity may present itself for their publication: 
j Noet, Virani, July 8, 1890. 
Prof. Luster F. Warp. 
Sim: I have examined the fossil plants of the Older Mesozoic (Trias) of North Caro- 
lina, which were formerly sent by Dr. Emmons to Dr. Isaac Lea, and which are now 
in possession of the United States National Museum. 
I find among them the following forms: ' 
Nos. 1 and 2. Asterocarpus virginiensis obtusiloba (in fruit). 
No. 3. Fucoid, not capable of identification. 
Nos. 4 and 5. Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. 6 Gopp. 
No. 6. Apparently a root. 
No. 7. Specimen not capable of identification. 
No. 8. Equisetum, too vague to identify. 
Nos. 9, 10, and 11. Specimens not capable of specific identification. 
No. 12. Cheirolepis diffusa. 
Nos. 1 and 2 are fruiting forms of Asterocarpus virginiensis obtusilobus. This species, 
before the discovery of this specimen, had been known only from the locality Clover 
Hil! in the Richmond coal field. Emmons does not appear to have either figured or 
described it among the forms given in his American Geology. Possibly he may have 
identified it with his Pecopteris falcatus—= Laccopteris Emmonsi. 
No. 3. This is a cast of a fucoid which is too imperfect to be determined. There 
are in the collection several other specimens showing vague imprints of fucoids. They 
are too imperfect to call for further notice. 
Nos. 4 and 5. These specimens are Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. 6 Gopp.,' or the 
form with shorter leaflets. This plant is figured and described in Emmons’s Ameri- 
can Geology as Pterozamites obtusifolius. From an inspection of the figures, I came 
some time ago to the conclusion that no good reason existed for separating this plant: 
from Géppert’s variety 8 of Ctenophyllum Braunianum. An examination of the plant 
itself confirms the conclusion. Emmons seems at first to have identified this species 
with Rogers’s Zamites obtusifolius, and the labels accompanying these specimens bear 
this name. Later he regarded it as Pterozamites. 
No. 6. This is marked by Emmons as coming from the coal shale, in which the 
fossil plants do not seem to be so abundantand in such variety as in the shales much 
higher up. The label with this specimen gives the name Gymnocaulus alternatus, but 
the impression does not show any significant character. It looks more like a root 
than anything else. , , 
No. 7. As indicated by the label accompanying this specimen, Emmons regarded 
it as a Lepacyclotes, but it is too imperfect to show anything definite. 
No. 8. This is an Equisetum, an imprint of the outer portion, but it is too indefi- 
nite to permit identification. It is most probably E. Rogersii. 
Nos. 9, 10, and 11. These specimens are all too imperfect to permit their identifi- 
cation with certainty. 
No. 12. Thisisa fine specimen, called by Emmons Walchia diffusus. With thisname 
he gives a figure of the plant in his American Geology, pl. iii, fig. 2. From an exami- 
nation of this figure, no specimens of the plant being accessible to me, I came with 
doubt to the conclusion (see Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, p. 106) that the plant 
isa Palissya. An examination, however, of a specimen of this form shows that it is 
not a Palissya, and also that it isnot a Walchia. It requires a study of more than 
one specimen of the plant satisfactorily to make out its character, for although a fine 
specimen, it does not show distinctly some features, All that can now be said of it 
is that it is probably a new genus, in foliage at east, intermediate between Cheirolepis 
