WARD.] THE TRIASSIC FLORA. 219 
bered that Bunbury’ in 1851, when he named that species, and all 
before that date, back to Brongniart in 1828, who first figured it,? 
regarded it as a Calamites. For the existence of Lepidodendron there 
would seem to be good authority; not, however, for its occurrence in 
the thick deposits of Pennsylvania, but in the New Jersey beds, in 
quarries of Newark and Belleville; a photograph of a specimen from 
which was sent to Professor Lesquereux by Professor Cook, State 
geologist of New Jersey. In his report Professor Lesquereux says: 
The photographs are sufficient, if not for specific determination at least for posi- 
tive reference of the specimens to Lepidodendron. Even. I should say that the 
specimens represent L. Veltheimianum Presl, as distinctly as a specific representation 
can be made upon a decorticated trunk of Lepidodendron. L. Veltheimianum isa 
leading species of the Old Red Sandstone found here, as in Europe, from the Sub- 
carboniferous Measures down to the Devonian, while until now we do not have any 
remains of Lepidodendron of any kind from the Upper Coal Measures (Permo-Car- 
boniferous), or from higher up than the Pittsburg coal. 
L. Veltheimianum +s recorded only once from the true Coal Measures; this by Eich- 
wald, from the Carboniferous sandstone of Russia. But European authors, among 
others Goeppert, doubt the identity of the Russian species with L. Veltheimianum, 
which is, moreover, extremely variable, and has been described already under about 
thirty different names.® , 
While the authority in this case is not to be questioned, there is cer- 
tainly room for doubt as to whether so important a conclusion drawn 
from a photograph of a decorticated specimen can be regarded as final. 
After reading Mr. Lyman’s articles I wrote to Professor Fontaine 
under date of May 4, 1894, as follows: 
Have you seen Mr. Lyman’s articles in the Proceedings of the American Philo- 
sophical Society (Vol. XX XIII, January, 1894, No. 144, pp. 5-10)? I wish you 
could see the spedimen of so-called Lepidodendron from the Newark brownstone, to see 
whether you agree with Lesquereux. It is just possible that there may be points 
at which the change from the brown sandstone to the underlying Carboniferous is 
not easily distinguished, and they may have got down into the Carboniferous. The 
whole matter ought surely to be looked into. 
To this Professor Fontaine replied under date of May 12, 1894, as 
follows: 
I had seen a notice of Lyman’s remarks on the Newark beds, but not the articles. 
Since you called my attention to them I have carefully read them. I think that he 
makes out a case strong enough to call for a careful revision of all that is known of 
the flora ofthese strata. It is possible, but I do not think probable, that the Devo- 
nian may be reached in some of the Newark strata. I think that the supposed Lepi- 
dodendron is the plant that I have figured in Monograph VI, pl. xlviii, fig. eewhies 
I supposed to be the stem of a cycad (see p. 91 of monograph) like Williamson sstem 
of Zamia gigas. This may be really a coniferous stem and belong to the conifer that 
bore the cones depicted on pls. xlyii and xlyili. These are possibly kin to 
Abies and the ancestral forms of the Abietites of the Potomac. This is strikingly 
1Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. VII, 1851, p. 190. le 
2Histoire des Végétaux Fossiles, Vol. I, p. 125, Pl, XVI, fig. 1. ; : - ; 
ae noe of New Jersey, Annual Report of the State Geologist for the year 1879, Tretton, 
1879, pp. 26-27. 
