FONTAINE.] THE OROVILLE FLORA. 363 
Genus LEPTOSTROBUS Heer. 
LeEprostRosus ? sp. Fontaine. 
Pl. LXVII, Fig. 1. 
1896. Undetermined cone Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. aap p. 274. 
A rather vague imprint occurs at the locality ‘‘In the bed of a ravine 
that leads from the Banner mine,” etc., which, although it shows no 
structure, in shape and the arrangement of its parts, looks something 
like a cone of Leptostrobus. It may be compared with the cone of 
Leptostrobus crassipes Heer, as given in Flor. Foss. Arct., Vol. IV, 
Pt. I, Beitrage zur Jura-Flora Ostsibiriens, pl. xiii, fig. 14. 
PLANTS OF UNCERTAIN AFFINITY. 
Genus CARPOLITHUS Stokes and Webb.* 
CaRPOLITHUS SrorrRsit Fontaine. 
Pl. LXV, Figs. 46. 
1896. Carpolithus Storrsii Font.: Am. Jour. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, p. 274. 
A considerable number of imprints of an aggregation of nut-like 
fruits was found at the locality ‘‘In the bed of a ravine that leads 
from the Banner mine,” etc. The nut-like seeds appear to have been 
borne in pairs at the summit of short pedicels, arranged at considera- 
ble intervals and spirally, around a flexuous axis. The thickest axis 
seen has a diameter of 3mm. The pedicels are stout and about 5 mm. 
1In the Nineteenth Ann. Rept. U.S. Geol. Survey, Pt. II, p. 691, this genus was credited to Artis, 
whose use of this orthography in his Antediluvian Phytology, 1825, pp. XV and 22, was then thought to be 
the earliest. I have since observed that it was so spelled by Stokes and Webb in their Description of 
some Fossil Vegetables of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex (Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 2d series, Vol. I, 
1824, p. 423) one year earlier. Schimper (Traité de Pal. Vég., Vol. II, p. 225) credits it to Sternberg, 
but he wrote the name Carpolites (Flora der Vorwelt, Vol. I, Tentamen, p. XL, 1825) A Schlotheim, in 
1820, wrote Carpolithes (Petrefactenkunde, p..418), and this seems to be the earliest date at which fos- 
sil fruits were systematically treated. Parkinson, in his Organic Remains, Vol. I, 1804, figured a con- 
siderable number on pl. vi, but an examination of the letterpress fails to indicate that he attempted 
to give them even a generic name. In Bronn’s Index Palaeontologicus (Nomenclator, pp. 238-241) 
most of these are naméd under Carpolithes and credited to Parkinson, with reference to pl. vi of the 
Organic Remaihs, but without reference to the text, and it seems probable that Géppert named them 
from the figures and is to be credited with the names. i Nivea.) 
The form Carpolithus seems preferable to Carpolithes or Canpolites, but if it is to be treated asa genus 
it should conform to the law of priority in use. It is retained here only on the assumption that it 
may ultimately be found to have priority when the investigation is complete. In fact, there is some 
justification for this, since Walch, in 1771 (Die Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen zur Erlauterung 
der Knorrischen Sammlung von Merkwiirdigkeiten der Natur, herausgegeben yon Johann ass 
Immanuel Walch, Dritter Theil, Niirnberg, 1771, p. 51), uses this term in the plural, ‘‘ Carpolithi,’’ for 
fossil fruits in general, taking pains on page 91 to give the Greek derivation from KapTos a Aros, 
but he does not seem to have used the singular, which would of course be Carpolithus. As, however, 
i ic (binomial) it may be questioned whether this constitutes the earliest 
his treatment was not systematic ( ) oa ae 
use of the genus. 
G 
