No. 471] CRETACEOUS PLANT REMAINS 195 
author first referred them to Eucalyptus geinitzi Heer,’ with the 
leaves of which species they, were found closely associated, but 
later he called what are evidently identical remains Dammara 
borealis Heer.’ 
In 1889, Mr. David White visited Gay Head, and in the fol- 
lowing year, in a paper “On Cretaceous Plants from Martha’s 
Vineyard” * he described and figured specimens collected there, 
referring to them as follows (pp. 98, 99): ‘‘ Next to the preceding 
species, the most numerous of the plants from Gay Head is 
Eucalyptus Geinitzi Hr., fig. 8-11, two of whose fruits, ‘ resem- 
bling unopened flowers of syngenesian plants,’ were figured as 
‘scales of vegetable remains’ in Hitchcock’s Final Report. This 
species, first described from the Liriodendron beds (Middle Cre- 
taceous) of Greenland, is abundant in and most characteristic of 
the Middle Cretaceous of Bohemia, and is also present in the 
same stage (Cenomanian) in Moravia. The specimen, fig. 11, 
is included here on account of its coincidence with one figured by 
Velenovsky (Foss. Flor. béhm. Kreide., iv, pl. xxv, fig. 7), which 
he supposed represented a flower of this species. It may belong 
to a conifer. 
“The remains of the nuts show longitudinal furrows (white in 
the figures) filled with a resin which is ‘indistinguishable by 
ordinary tests from Amber,’ and which was observed and pro- 
nounced amber by Hitchcock in 1841. These doubtless are the 
remains of gum or oil vessels, such as exist in the nuts of recent 
Eucalypts; and the granules of ‘amber’ can hardly be else than 
Eucalyptus gum. 
“The explanation is at once suggested that the fragments of 
amber observed by various writers, during the last hundred years, 
about Gay Head, and in the New Jersey Cretaceous, where also 
Euealyyte are found, are the product of the contemporaneous 
‘gum-trees,’ rather than of some conifer. None of this Ameri- 
can amber has, I believe, been tested for succinic acid, or to 
show its relation to true amber.” 
1 Foss. Fl. Bohm. Kreideform., pt. 4, p. 1 [62], pl. 1 [24]. figs. 1, 2; pl. 2 
[25], figs. 6-11; pl. 4 [27], fig. 13 in part, 1885. 
? Kvet. Cesk. 
7, 
5 Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. 39, p. 93-101, pl. 2, 1890. 
