FONTAINE, ] THE EMMONS COLLECTION. 291 
their tips, as they are torn off. The width of the leaflets varies from 
11 mm. to 25 mm. or more, for the widest one, as shown in Fig. 5, is not 
wholly preserved. Possibly the plant is a Nilsonia, as the mode of 
attachment of the leaflets is not certainly shown. They seem, how- 
ever, to have been attached to the side of the midrib. The general 
facies and nervation are unlike those of Macroteniopteris magni folia, 
even if we admit the segmentation to be identical. This plant resem- 
bles slightly the form mentioned above as figured by Emmons for 
Teniopteris magnifolia of Rogers. Emmons says, as quoted before, 
that it is often, if not always, divided into segments down to the 
midrib. 
It is, of course, not possible to determine from this amount of frag- 
mentary material the true position of this plant. It should be noted 
that the expression quoted from Emmons implies that the plant is 
rather common, but he says nothing explicit regarding its occurrence, 
and does not mention the locality yielding it. It is significant that the 
constancy of its segmentation attracted Emmons’s attention, and sug- 
gested the idea that it might not be accidental. In the hundreds of 
specimens from the Virginia Older Mesozoic that I saw many were 
variously lacerated, but it was always evident that the segmentation 
was accidental. 
Genus CTENOPHYLLUM Schimper. 
CTENOPHYLLUM BrauniaNum aNnGusTum (Friedrich Braun) Schimper. 
Pl. XXXIX, Figs. 6, 7. 
1848. Pterozamites angustus Fr. Braun in Miinster: Beitriige zur Petrefactenkunde, 
Vol. IL, Pt. VI, p. 30. 
1856. Pterozamites decussatus Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties of 
North Carolina, p. 330, pl. ili, fig. 1. 
1856. Zamites graminioides Emm.: Op. cit., p. 330 (Dionites graminoides, p. 349), 
pl. iv, fig. 11. 
1856. Pterozamites sp. Emm.: Op. cit., p. 349, pl. ili, fig. 8. 
1857. Pterozamites spatulatus Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 120, fig. 88. 
1857. Dionites linearis (Zamites graminoides) Emm.: Op. cit., p. 121, pl. iv, fig. 11. 
1867. Pterophyllum Braunianum var. a Schenk: Foss. Fl. der Grenzschichten des 
Keupers und Lias Frankens, p. 164, pl. xxxviii, fig. 6.1 
1870. Ctenophyllum Brawnianum var. a (Schenk) Schimp.. Traité de Paléontologie 
Végétale, Vol. II, p. 144. 
1883. Pterophyllum decussatum (Emm.) Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, 
Mon. U. 8. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, p. 111, pl. li, fig. 2. 
1883. Pterophyllum spatulatum (Emm.) Font.: Op. cit., p. 114, pl. liii, fig. 6. 
There are in Emmons’s collection several fine impressions of Cteno- 
phyllum Braunianum var. a, They differ in no respect from the typ- 
18chenk leaves no doubt that his var. a here is the Pterozamites angustus of Braun in Miinster’s 
Beitriige. It is therefore much better to restore Braun’s name with varietal rank than to perpetuate 
the awkward designation by a Greek letter. L. F. W. 
