FONTAINE,] THE EMMONS COLLECTION. 283 
ultimate pinne are shown, one of them 10 em long. They are numer- 
ous, long, slender pinnee, and are so placed as to indicate that they were 
all attached to a principal rachis. This denotes a plant of. large size, 
comparable with the large Virginia forms. While the long, slender 
pinnules are most common on Emmons’s specimens, some of them show 
the short, very obtuse pinnules that are more common in the Virginia 
forms. Fig. 5 represents the more common form of Emmons’s fossils. 
Fig. 4 gives a fragment of a penultimate rachis and a portion of an 
ultimate pinna that was probably attached to it. The ultimate pinna 
carries some pinnules of the shorter and proportionally broader form, 
which are less common. _ 
Emmons, in Pt. VI of his American Geology, p. 100, pl. iv, fig. 9, 
describes a fern that he calls Pecopteris falcatus, and in fig. 5 of the 
same plate he gives an allied fern, which he says may be called P. 
Jalcatus variabilis, On pages 100-101, fig. 68, pl. iv, figs. 1, 2, he 
describes sterile and fruiting forms of what he regards as a different 
fern, and names it P. carolinensis. All of these are forms of the poly- 
morphous Asterocarpus virginiensis. The different appearance of the 
sori in the forms regarded by Emmons as different species is due to 
the fact that the sori of the supposed P. falcatus are seen with the 
upper surface of the frond presented uppermost, while in the forms 
given as P. carolinensis they are presented with the lower surface of 
the frond uppermost and show their true character, which is that of 
Asterocarpus virginiensis. Eammons’s figures of these plants are not 
good. | 
In reviewing these plants in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 
102, I had to depend on Emmons’s figures. I supposed that they rep- 
resented plants that were constant in the different forms depicted, 
with no specimens forming a passage from one form to the other. 
Hence I accepted the conclusion of Emmons that two species are in- 
volved, and, from the fructification, I supposed them to be Laccopteris. 
I suggested that Pecopteris falcatus be called Laccopteris Emmonsi and 
Pecopteris carolinensis be named L. carolinensis. 
“Genus MACROTANIOPTERIS Schimper. 
MAcCROTANIOPTERIS MAGNIFOLIA Schimper. ' 
Emmons makes mention of this fern, which is so common in the 
Virginia Older Mesozoic, in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 102, but 
does not say where it oecurs. He gives a figure (fig. 70, on p. 103) of 
a fern of this general character, with the lamina in segments, saying 
that this form occurs often, if not always, in this shape. Possibly this 
may really be an Anomozamites or Nilsonia. 
I saw a fragment of a leaf 13 cm. long that is certainly If magni- 
1¥For synonymy, see supra, p. 238. 
