288 OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 
original of Emmons’s fig. 5 on pl. iii, In my review of Emmons’s 
plants, published in Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 105-106, 
I was led, judging from Emmons’s fig. 5, to regard this plant as identical 
with Acrostichites rhombifolius, a fora that is characteristic of the 
Older Mesozoic of Virginia. An inspection of the specimen confirms 
me in that belief. Emmons’s fig. 55 pl. iii, gives pretty well the gen- 
eral aspect of this, the only specimen seen. It does not, however, | 
represent the pinnules of the lower pinne quite as wide and as much 
separated as they are in the original. The nerves of this latter are 
not very distinct, but they show the character of those of A. rhombi- 
folius. I givein Pl. XX XIX, Fig. 4, a representation of a few of the 
lower pinnules on a pinna, to indicate their character on the specimen. 
I did not see the original of pl. vi, fig. 1. Possibly that is a different 
species. 
Class EQUISETALES. 
Family EQUISETACEA, 
Genus EQUISETUM Linneus. 
Equisetum Rogers (Bunbury) Schimper.' 
In the collection there are several fossils which are much flattened 
casts of the stems of an Equisetum and several imprints, which were 
made by the exterior surface of apparently the same species of plant. 
Both are exactly like the markings left by similar parts of Zgudsetum 
Rogersit, as found in the Older Mesozoic of Virginia. Hence there can 
be little doubt that this plant is found in North Carolina. Emmons, in 
American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 35, describes a form which he calls Cada- 
mites punctatus and refers to pl. ii, fig. 5, for a figure of it. Plate ii is 
absent, but pl. vi, fig. 5, gives'a plant that agrees with his description.’ 
In my review published in Mon. U. 8. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 98, I 
concluded that this is not an Equisetum, but a fragment of a leaf of 
Sphenozamites Rogersianus. 1 saw nothing like it in the collection and 
have no reason to change my opinion. The original, also, of Emmons’s 
Equisetum columnaroides, described in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 
35, and figured in pl. vi, fig. 3 (given by Emmons as pi. ii, fig. 3), was 
not seen. The casts above mentioned are quite different from each of 
these fossils as described by Emmons, and they show the finely striate 
surface so characteristic of the casts of the Virginia plant, which has 
been called Culamites wrenaceus. 
Emmons gives in pl. vi, fig. 9 (p. 109), the figure of a form which 
1For synonymy, see supra, p. 241. 
2Tt is pl. ii, fig. 5, of the earlier Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina, which 
Professor Fontaine did not use. The plates are the same in the two volumes, but pl. ii of the earlier 
is plate vi of the later one. On p. 349 (description of the plates) of the former, Dr. Emmons says of 
this figure: ‘‘ Leaflet of an undescribed plant.’ He does not mention it in the text. L. F. W. 
