Further Notes on Floral Structures. 75 



Nor does it, adding yet another word, seem even remotely 

 probable that any of the earlier named Maryland or European 

 Cycads agree with or could ever be found to preoccupy C. 

 Marshiana / for the Maryland forms appear to be, in agree- 

 ment with all European forms, distinctly columnar, while 

 Cycadeoidea 7naryla?idica (Font.) Capellini et Solms is most 

 like Cycadeoidea etrusca Capellini et Solms, the flowers of 

 which have been briefly restudied by the writer thanks to the 

 interest of Capellini.* 



It thus transpires that so far as more definitely known the 

 larger branching specimens from Minnekahta are mainly 

 included in the huge, large-flowered Cycadeoidea dacotensis, 

 which probably includes C. colossalis, C. minnekahtensis and 

 several other species, with C. superba as a closely related type. 

 The medium-sized specimens, bearing in mind that it is the 

 adult fruit-bearing plant that is spoken of, mostly belong to 

 Cycadeoidea Marshiana ; and following this well represented 

 type comes, amongst smaller forms of branching trunks, the 

 interesting C. nana, further to be mentioned below. But a 

 closer scanning of these various forms need not now be 

 attempted, the only object of the preceding paragraphs having 

 been to fairly explain what the true specific names of the 

 flowers and parent trunks here considered really is. 



Though before turning to the description of the flowers of 

 Cycadeoidea Marshiana, which is thus the main object of this 

 study, it may, however, conduce to clearness both now and 

 hereafter to observe that the changes in specific, assignments 

 which must inevitably follow the closer study of the silicified 

 cycads can scarcely be regarded as taking away from the net 

 value of Professor Ward's earlier determinations and descrip- 

 tions based on macroscopic characters alone. In 1899 the 

 writer published his opinion that it was fortunate for scientific 

 uniformity that Professor Ward had studied the entire Ameri- 

 can series then known ; and this^view still seems just. True 

 enough, when the trunks of the greater Yale collections assem- 

 bled by 1902 came to be searched rigorously for the purpose 

 of matching isolated parts of trunks, the catalogue list was 

 reduced by about forty numbers, it being found, that in some 

 instances parts of one and the same trunk had reached the 

 Museum in different collections, sometimes received several 

 years apart. And it also became evident that the great branch- 

 ing trunks of the Minnekahta series as thus frequently disso- 

 ciated in the course of collecting had in considerable part 

 simply defied accurate assignment on the basis of outer 

 characters. 



But, on the other hand, all subsequent study has indicated 

 the substantial accuracy of the entire specific alignment first 

 * See Historic Fossil Cycads, this Journal, Feb. 1908. 



