FONTAINE.] THE EMMONS COLLECTION. 287 
bases. They appear to have been quite small—much smaller than the 
normal leaves of 8. rhoifolia. The texture appears to have been much 
more delicate than that of the latter plant, but the most important dif- 
ference is in the nervation. There is no trace of midrib or even of a 
parent nerve at the base of the leaves. Schimper makes the existence 
of a midnerve a feature in the character of Sagenopteris. ' If it is an 
essential one, then this plant is not a Sagenopteris.. In the ultimate 
nervation the anastomosis occurs at long intervals, the nerves forking, 
and occasionally a branch uniting with an adjoining nerve. The method 
of anastomosing resembles that of Nathorst’s genus Arthrophyopsis. 
Nathorst* describes, from the Rhetic flora of Bjuf, a plant with the name 
Sagenopteris dentata that is much like the one now in question. It has 
the same thin texture, absence of midrib, and sparse anastomosis, but 
the North Carolina plant, perhaps owing to its imperfect preservation, 
does not show any dentation. 
Genus ACROSTICHITES Goppert. 
ACROSTICHITES LINNEZZFOLIUS (Bunbury) Fontaine.’ 
Acrostichites linneefolius, a fern that is very characteristic of the 
Older Mesozoic of Virginia, is not given by Emmons as occurring in 
North Carolina. His mention of it on page 104 of Pt. VI indicates 
that he had not seen it in the North Carolina beds.* In his collection 
at Williams College I saw an imprint of a fragment of an ultimate 
pinna, containing a number of pinnules, which show the form of the 
sterile pinnules of this plant, and also the characteristic sori. The 
specimen had no label giving the locality, hence it is possible, but not 
probable, that it comes from the Virginia beds. 
ACROSTICHITES TENUIFOLIUS (Emmons) Fontaine. 
Pl. XXXIX, Fig. 4. 
1856. Undetermined plant. Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of 
North Carolina, p. 349, pl. iii, fig. 5. 
1857. Odontopteris tenuifolius+ Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 105, pl. iii, fig. 5. 
1883. Acrostichides rhombifolius Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. 
8. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI.,-pp. 29, 105, pl. viii, figs. 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b; pl. 
xi, figs. 1, la, 2,3; pl. xii, figs. 1, la, 2; pl. xiii, figs. 1, la, 2; pl. xiv; pl. 
xlix, fig. 7. 
One of the type specimens of the plant described by Emmons’ as 
Odontopteris tenifolius, was seen by me in his collection. It is the 
1Floran vid Bjuf, Vol. I, p, 27, pl. ii, figs. 5-7. 
2 For synonymy, see supra, p. 240. , 
3His figure (North Carolina Report, pl. ij, fig. 6; American Geology, Pt. VI, pl. vi, fig. 6) is a copy of 
the upper part of Bunbury’s, in Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. III, 1847, pl. x. L. F. W. 
4Misprinted ‘“ Odontopteris tenifolius.” 
5 American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 105. 
