242 



Zittel's Fig. 348, at p. 638, shows " flowers " of E. Geinitzi Heer. The flowers 

 are shown in Plate 227, figs. 11 and 13, of the present Part. 



Saporta (1894) (p. 230) and shortly afterwards Dr. J. S. Newberry, " The Flora 

 of the Amboy Clays" (1895) (under E. (?) angnstifolia, ante, p. 234) were the first to 

 throw doubt on the supposed Eucalyptus fruits of Heer. 



Newberry surmised them to be " the detached scales of the cone of some 

 conifer, and probably generically identical with the cone-scales he (Heer) had labelled 

 Dammara borealis." He then goes on to show an essential difference between a 

 Eucalyptus fruit and the fruits which are aggregates of these scales. 



Dr. A. Hollick (the editor of Dr. Newberry's posthumous work) suggests 

 reference to fruits of D. microlepis Heer and E. Geinitzi Heer, as depicted by Heer 

 himself. Dr. Hollick (ante, p. 234) under E. Geinitzi, doubts whether a specimen from 

 the Amboy Clays referred ±o that species " represents a specimen of this species or 

 even genus." This early had there been doubts about the American fossil reputed 

 Eucalypts. 



In the following observations Professor E. W. Berry is feeling his way towards 

 referring certain alleged American fossil Eucalypts to the very American genus Myrcia. 

 He is naturally diffident about extensively disturbing nomenclature. 



"The Origin and Distribution of the Family Myrtaeeae." 



"... The Eucalyptus forms, according to the view of this student (E. C. Andrews, Proc. Linn. 

 Soc. N.S.W., xxxviii, 529, 1913), were derived from Metrosideros after the separation of New Caledonia 

 from Australia and the latter continent from Asia. To support this latter point Andrews is obliged to 

 consider all of the cretaceous identifications of Eucalyptus and all of the Tertiary identifications outside 

 of Australia as equally misleading. With regard to the presence of Eucalyptus in North America, I 

 think this contention to be not unlikely, for although in accordance with paleobotanical usage I have 

 identified numerous forms of Eucalyptus in the North American Upper Cretaceous, I have long thought 

 that these leaves represented ancestral forms of Eugenia or Myrcia, but have hesitated suggesting any 

 change based merely on personal opinion, and also from a consideration that such change in nomenclature 

 is undesirable at the present time from the standpoint of stratigraphic paleobotany, which, in this 

 country, at least, is a most useful handmaid of geology. 



" The supposed cretaceous fruits of Eucalyptus have long since been shown to represent Dammara- 

 like forms, and, in my studies of the tertiary floras, I have refrained from referring any of the numerous 

 and unquestionable myrtaceous leaves to the genus Eucalyptus. Regarding the possible occurrence of 

 Eucalyptus in the Tertiary of Europe, I am not sure that all of the identifications of Heer, Unger, 

 Ettingshausen, and others, are erroneous. Certain remains considered as Eucalyptus fruits by these 

 authors seem very convincing* from the published figures [he repeats these sentiments the following year 

 in ' U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 91,' p. 119. — J.H.M.], and furthermore there is not tie 

 slightest doubt that the other great Australian alliance of the existing flora, the Proteaceas, was represented 

 in both Europe and America during the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. There is an additional argument 

 against the cretaceous radiation and the paleobotanical determination of Eucalyptus, which is furnished by 



* If Prof Berry refers to Hecr's figures of those of E. Hceringiana shown in his Plate 28 (1853) and reproduced in 

 figs. 10, 11, ftc., Plate 225, of the present Part, then I regret I cannot agree with him. I have not seen a fruit referred to 

 Euealj'ptus of either Cretaceous or Tertiary that I agree in referring to that genus, but it may readily happen that 

 Prof. Berry has seen figures unknown to. me. 



