240 OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 
discovery. As Professor Fontaine says, ‘It is too poorly preserved 
to give any distinct character, but the nervation indicates that it is a 
fragment of some Sagenopteris.” 
Mr. Wanner speaks of it as an undetermined frond, and says that 
the figure shows an impression sufficiently legible to be referred toa 
fern, but so fragmentary as to prevent any further conjecture as to 
genus or species. It suggests Thyrsopteris. 
Locality.—N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven. 
Genus ACROSTICHITES Géppert. 
ACROSTICHITES LINN/#FOLIUS (Bunbury) Fontaine. 
Pl. XXV, Figs. 7, 8. 
1847. Neuropteris linnzefolius Bunb.: Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., Vol. ILI, Pt. I, pp. 
281, 288, pl. x. 
1857. Cyclopteris linneefolia (Bunb.) Heer: Am. Jour. Sci., 2d Ser., Vol. XXIV, 
p. 428. 
1883. Acrostichites linneefolius (Bunb.) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, 
Mon. U. 8. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 25, pl. vi, figs. 3, 3a; pl. vii, figs. 
144; pl. viii, figs. 1, 1a; pl. ix. 
Mr. Wanner had doubtfully identified this plant with MJertensides 
bullatus Font. Professor Fontaine says: 
This identification is probably not correct. I noted several sterile pinnules of 
Acrostichites linnzefolius and none of Mertensides bullatus. The specimen is probably 
the former plant. 
Mr. Wanner had made the following very brief statement with 
regard to it: 
A fragmentary part of the original, Pl. X XV, Figs. 7, 8, seems to belong here. How- 
ever, other and better specimens are needed satisfactorily to locate it. Fig. 8 shows 
the venation. 
Locality.—N. C. R. R. cut, south of York Haven. 
ACROSTICHITES MICROPHYLLUS Fontaine? 
Pl. XXV, Figs. 9, 10. 
1883. Acrostichites microphyllus Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U.S.: 
Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 33, pl. vii, fig. 5; pl. x, fig, 2; pl. xi, fig. 4; pl. 
xii, figs. 3, 3a. 
Mr. Wanner doubtfully identified this plant with Mertensides distans 
Font. Professor Fontaine thinks it can not be that species, and remarks: 
This small fragment, marked doubtfully as Mertensides distans, did not show, so far 
as I could see, the nervation given by Mr. Wanner. The pinnules havea granulation 
that suggests that the plant may be an Acrostichites. If so, it is probably A. micro- 
phyllus. Another specimen, not figured by Mr. Wanner, shows some rather obscure 
pinnules of A. microphyllus. At the same time the pinnules of Mr. Wanner’s Merten- 
sides distans look much like his Lonchopteris? 
