FLORA OF THE CHEYENNE SANDSTONE OF KANSAS. 
Among the somewhat similar forms which 
Ward mentions are remains from Kukurbit, in 
Kach (Lias), described by Feistmantel® as 
‘‘portions of a stem of a coniferous plant.’’ 
. Next in point of similarity are certain English 
and German Wealden remains regarded as 
parts of Clathraria anomala,® some of which 
are still referred by Seward“ to Bucklandia 
anomala, a later name for the same plant. 
The latter are undoubtedly medullary casts of 
cycadophyte trunks, a class of remains for 
which Saporta* proposed the name Cyca- 
deomyelon, describing one species from the 
infra-Lias of Hettange, near Metz (Moselle). 
Remotely similar remains from the Triassic of 
York County, Pa., are described by Fontaine * 
as Cycadeomyelon yorkense, and the forms 
described by Newberry® are referred to it, 
although Seward* had shown that remains 
from abroad identical with these are to be 
interpreted as medullary casts of Voltzia. 
Similar remains were more recently discussed 
by Wills,” who refigures one of the original 
specimens of Voltzia coburgensis.“ They are 
also practically identical in character, as 
Potonié” has shown, with casts of the medul- 
‘lary cavities of certain existing Araucarias, 
notably Araucaria brasiliana. Other remains 
of this general sort, which, however, seem 
referable to the Cycadophyta, are Omphalomela 
scabra Germar,®° renamed by Schimper* Clath- 
raria? germari,and Cycadeoidea stillwelli Ward.” 
As Seward has pointed out, Williamson*® fig- 
ured very similar casts of the medullary cavity 
of Stigmaria, thus emphasizing the wide range 
in botanic affinity of objects of this kind. 
39 Feistmantel Ottokar, Fossil flora of the Gondwana system, vol. 2, 
pt. 1, p. 61, pl. 10, fig. 2, 1876. 
40 Stokes and Webb, Geol. Soc. London Trans., 2d ser., vol. 1, pl. 46, 
fig. 8; pl. 47, figs. 4b, 4c, 1824. See Schenk’s figure of Clathraria lyelli 
Manitell, Palaeontographica, Band 19, p. 227, pl. 30, fig. 7, 1871. 
4. Seward, A. C., Wealden flora, pt. 2, p. 123, 1895. 
#8 Saporta, Gaston de, Plantes jurassiques, tome 2, p. 331, 1875. 
43 Idem, p. 333, atlas, pl. 49, fig. 5. 
4 Fontaine, W. M., in Ward, L. F., U. S. Geol. Survey Twentieth 
Ann. Rept., pt. 2, p. 248, pl. 30, 1900. 
45 Newberry, J. S., op. cit. 
48 Seward, A. C., Geol. Mag., dec. 3, vol. 7, pp. 218-220, fig. 1, 1890. 
47 Wills, L. J., Geol, Assoc. Proc., vol. 21, pp. 292-294, 1910. 
#8 Idem, pl. 17, fig. 6. 
Potonié, H., K. preuss. geol. Landesanst. Jabrb., 1887, pp. 311-331, 
pls, 12-13a. 
® Germar, E. F., Palaeontographica, Band 1, p. 3, 1846. 
51 Schimper, W. P., Paléontologie végétale, tome 3, p. 554, 1874. 
8 Ward, L.F., U. 8. Geol. Survey Twentieth Ann. Rept., pt. 2, p. 636, 
pl. 149, 1900. 
53 Williamson, W. C., A monograph on the morphology and histology 
of Stigmaria ficoides, pl. 13, figs, 64, 65, Palaeont. Soc., 1887. 
223 
Turning now,to the Cretaceous remains ‘to 
which the genus, if used at all, should be re- 
stricted (although Ward has the temerity to 
rename Feistmantel’s Indian Liassic fossil 
’ Feistmantelia fusiformis), we may note that in 
addition to the type species from the Fuson 
formation, Fontaine * has described an addi- 
tional species from the Patuxent formation at 
Cockpit Point, Va., which is really indistin- 
guishable from the type species, and Ward * 
has mentioned the occurrence of similar objects 
from Kansas at a higher Cretaceous horizon. 
Still more recently Hollick and Jeffrey * have 
described comparable remains with structure 
preserved from the upper Raritan of Kreischer- 
ville, Staten Island, and have demonstrated 
their coniferous nature, naming their material 
Pinus sp.? Some of this material is said to 
have been found in organic connection with 
wood showing the characters of Pitorylon. It 
is not altogether clear that the Lower Creta- 
ceous species of Feistmantelia are of the same 
nature as that described by MHollick and 
Jeffrey, although these authors have furnished 
the presumption that they are all casts of the 
interstitial cavities of the periderm network of 
the bark, due to decay, in some conifer. That 
they should be referred to Pinus, even for indi- 
vidual specimens, seems unwise, and the genus 
Feistmantelia is here retained as a convenient 
form genus for remains of this sort, which may 
represent various modern coniferous genera. 
Indistinguishable remains occur in the Tus- 
caloosa formation of Alabama, although I did 
not consider them of sufficient importance. to 
include them in my paper on the Tuscaloosa 
flora.” They are also present at as recent a 
‘horizon as the upper part of the Black Creek 
formation in North Carolina. These also I did 
not consider of sufficient interest to include in 
my account of that flora, but I am including 
here a figure of a North Carolina specimen for 
comparison with one from the Cheyenne sand- 
stone, to show that the latter is without strati- 
graphic value. 
51 Fontaine W.M., in Ward, L. F., U.S. Geol. Survey Mon. 48, p. ‘484, 
pl. 107, fig. 3, 1906. 
55 Ward, L. F., U.S. Geol. Survey Nineteenth Ann. Rept., Pt. 2, p. 694, . 
1899. 
56 Hollick, Arthur, and Jeffrey, E. C., New York Bot. Garden Mem., 
vol. 3, p. 17, pl. 3, fig. 8; pl. 22, fig. 5, 1909. 
51 Berry, E. W., U. 8. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 112, 1919, 
