310 OLDER MESOZOIC FLORAS OF UNITED STATES. 
about midway of its length. The leaves, however, were probably 
originally not much longer than this, and had pretty much the 
same shape. The plant is apparently an Abietites not hitherto 
described, and it may be called Adzetites carolinensis. 
PLANTS OF DOUBTFUL AFFINITY. 
Genus ACTINOPTERIS Schenk. 
ACTINOPTERIS QUADRIFOLIA (Emmons) Fontaine. 
Pl. XLVII, Fig. 2. 
1856. Sphenoglossum quadrifolium Emm.: Geological Report of the Midland Counties 
of North Carolina, p. 335, pl. i, fig. 2. 
1857. Sphenoglossum quadrifolium Emm.: American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 134, pl. 
v, fig. 2. 
1883. Pree quadrifoliata Font.: Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, Mon. U. 8. 
Geol. Survey, Vol VI, pp. 120, 121, pl. lii, fig. 3. 
Emmons gives, in American Geology, Pt. VI, p. 134, a description 
of a plant which he calls Sphenoglossum quadrifolium. He gives a 
figure of the plant in pl. v, fig. 2. Of this plant he says: ‘‘The layer 
upon which the plant is preserved is soft, and hence has suffered from 
abrasions; but many specimens were found in the upper marly sand- 
stone (Keuper), some single, some in two, and others with three leaves, 
and the base of the fourth. One is therefore restored in the figure.” 
In Mon. U. S. Geol. Survey, Vol. VI, pp. 120, 121, I expressed the 
opinion that the plant is probably an Actinopteris and suggested that 
it be called Actinopteris quadrifoliata. 
In the Emmons collection at Williams College there is a specimen 
of this plant, the only one seen. It shows one nearly complete leaf 
and fragments of two others. They are wedge-shaped and grouped 
around a central point, which seems to be the top of a stem. There 
is a vacant space which seems to have been occupied by a fourth leaf, 
for it is placed like the leaves that are present, and the size of it sug- 
gests a missing leaf. If there had been originally a fourth leaf 
present they would have stood opposite one another and the four 
would have nearly filled a circular space, with their edges almost 
touching. The specimen contains now no trace of carbonaceous mat- 
ter of the leaves; only an impression of them is shown. This may be 
the original of Emmons’s figure. I could, however, see no trace of the 
fourth leaf mentioned by Emmons as showing its base. I am not sure 
that the original termination is now shown on the most complete leaf. 
If so, then it would be rounded in the form depicted in Emmons’s 
figure. The Jeaves show distinctly only striations. There are obscure 
indications of nerves. If these really are nerves, then they radiate in 
fan shape from the base of the leaf, repeatedly forking like those of 
the living Gingko. Pl. XLVII, Fig. 2, represents the specimen seen, 
