224 OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 
tioned in the previous report he now calls Fucovdes Shepardi, and he 
distinguishes another as F. connecticutensis. These plant impressions’ ~ 
are for the most part figured in the text; but in addition he gives one 
plate (which in the text he refers to aspl. 29, but which bears the num- 
ber 28) on which occur four figures of various small objects, none of 
which are generically determinable, and only one can be with certainty 
referred to the vegetable kingdom. viz, fig. 2, which probably repre- 
sents a Palissya. 
The same author read a paper before the Association of Geologists 
and Naturalists in 1842, in which he described a number of additional 
plant forms from this same region." 
In this paper Dr. Hitchcock gives an account of the fossil tree already 
mentioned, which was found at Southbury, the specimens of which he 
had sent to Professor Bailey at West Point, whose language he quotes 
in this paper and whose figures he also gives on the plate. Professor 
Bailey had made three sections, one of which was longitudinal and 
sufficiently radial to show conclusively that the wood of this tree was 
coniferous, and he so pronounced it. Dr. Hitchcock also here figures 
a specimen found in the dark-gray sandstone of Mount Holyoke, 
Massachusetts, which he says belongs to the genus Tzniopteris, and 
which he compares with 7. vttata Brongn., as figured in Bronn’s 
Lethea Geognostica. ; The figure (fig. 2) of this specimen is so very 
poor that no one would suspect it of being a fern, but inasmuch as he 
states that the specimen closely resembles Zwniopteris vittata we can 
interpret the figure with some satisfaction, and there would scarcely 
seem to be any doubt that this specimen actually represented a Teeni- 
opteris or Macroteniopteris. This is interesting in view of the fact 
that Dr. Newberry, in his work already quoted,” speaking of Zwni- 
opteris magnifolia of Rogers, says that ‘‘this has not yet been found 
anywhere in the North, nor has any other similar fern been met 
with there,” showing that Dr. Newberry had probably overlooked this 
paper by Dr. Hitchcock. The other three figures represent a conifer 
allied to Voltzia or perhaps belonging to Palissya, but too poorly pre- 
served and too badly figured to be determinable. , 
In 1847 Dr. Benjamin Silliman gave an account’ of two fossil trees, 
one of them with branches, found in place in the red sandstone in the 
town of Bristol, Connecticut. A clear picture of the quarry with the 
trees exposed is given on page 117, and his description is rather 
full and satisfactory. As in the case of the Southbury specimens, a 
report was secured from Prof. J. W. Builey on the internal structure, 
with the same result. that it indicated the coniferous character of 
these remains. 
1 Description of several species of fossil plants from the New Red Sandstone Formation of Con- 
necticut and Massachusetts, by Edward Hitchcock: Report of the first, second, and third meetings 
of the Phil. Assoc. of Am. Geologists and Naturalists, 1840-1842, Boston, 1848, pp. 294-296, pl. xiii. 
2Mon. U.S. Geol. Survey, Vol. XIV, 1888, p. 12. 
3 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d series, Vol. IV, 1847, pp. 116-118 (fig. on p. 117). 
