WARD.) THE HUDSON-POTOMAO AREA. 229 
to the posterior shales, and those that are common to both. This 
enumeration includes 13 plant forms, 11 of which are specifically 
named. Six of these forms are confined to the anterior and 2 to 
the posterior shales, while the remaining 5 are common to both 
situations. 
THE HUDSON-POTOMAC AREA. 
By this name may be designated the continuous belt of Triassic 
deposits that begins with the palisades of the Hudson and ends with the 
Seneca quarries on the Maryland side of the Potomac. Its position is 
too well known to require description. The several States may be 
treated in their order. No fossil plants have been reported from any 
locality in the Trias of New York. 
TRIASSIC PLANTS FROM NEW JERSEY. 
Prof. Henry D. Rogers, in his description of the Geology of the 
State of New Jersey, published in 1840, devotes a chapter (Chapter 
III, p. 114) to ‘the Middle Secondary Rocks,” which is the designa- 
tion preferred by him for this series, and of these rocks he says (pp. 
115-116): 
The organic remains hitherto discovered are extremely few, and the evidence 
they afford is not sufficient to establish within near limits the era to which these 
stratashould be referred. They consist merely of a few rather imperfect relics of one 
or two species of fishes, some indistinct impressions of Fucoides, or other aquatic vege- 
tation, and occasional thin bands of Jigniform coal, in which the fibrous structure, 
apparently that of the wood, is traceable. 
On May 6, 1869, Mr. T. A. Conrad presented a paper to the Con- 
chological Section of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences 
in which he described two species of fossil mollusks from South River, 
New Jersey, found in ash-colored clay near Washington, Middlesex 
County, which he says “‘ contains abundant stems and leaves of Cyclop- 
teris.” He further remarks that, although Rogers had referred this 
clay to the Cretaceous, he (Conrad) had ‘‘ ascertained it to be Triassic.” 
No one, to my knowledge, has since seen these ‘‘ Cyclopteris” leaves. 
Whitfield’ refers to this and remarks: 
It will be seen by reference to Professor Lesquereux’s list published in the ‘‘Report 
on Clays”’ (Geol. Rept. New Jersey, 1878, p. 28, 29) that Professor L. does not include 
this genus among those examined and reported upon. We may, therefore, consider 
that Mr. Conrad may have been mistaken. 
As the list in the Report on Clays contains only species found in the 
Plastic Clays, which are Cretaceous, this seems curious reasoning. 
There are clay pits near Washington from which I have myself col- 
lected beautiful impressions of fossil plants belonging to the flora of 
1Am, Jour. of Conchology, Vol. [V, 1869, pp. 278-279, 
2 Mon. U.S. Geol. Survey, Vol, IX, 1885, p. 22. 
