No. 471] CRETACEOUS PLANT REMAINS 197 
description of Juniperus macilenta, on pp. 54, 55 (loc. cit.), as fol- 
lows: ‘‘Thickly scattered among the twigs there are cone scales 
and cones.... The cone scales are evidently identical with those 
described by Heer under the name of Dammara microlepis.... 
and probably with those described by him as Dammara borealis.” 
He says, however, that they cannot belong either to Dammara 
or to Juniperus and finally concludes with ‘he hope “that in the 
future material will be obtained that will enable us to reconstruct 
this tree and determine with accuracy its botanical relations.” 
Dr. Newberry again refers to the scales in connection with his 
discussion of Eucalyptus? angustifolia, in the following words 
(ibid., p. 111): ‘‘ Professor Heer feels strengthened in his refer- 
ence of leaves having this nervation to Eucalyptus by finding in 
company with them what he regards as the fruit of Eucalyptus; 
but in my judgment the examples he gives of this fruit... .are 
rather detached scales of the cone of some conifer, and probably 
generically identical with the cone scales which he has called 
Dammara borealis.” 
Some years ago the senior writer of this paper began an investi- 
gation of the Cretaceous flora of the Atlantic coastal plain, and in 
the material collected in New Jersey and on Staten Island, Long 
Island, Block Island, and Martha’s Vineyard, numerous speci- 
~ mens of cone scales were found, some of them unquestionably . 
identical with Dammara borealis or D. microlepis as defined by 
Heer, and others which apparently represented new species. 
Following are references to the specimens in question :— 
“Dammara borealis, Heer?’’ Tottenville, Staten Island. Trans. 
N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 12, p. 31, pl. 1, fig. 17, 1892. 
“Dammara borealis, Heer.”” Chappaquidick, Martha’s Vine- 
yard. Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard., vol. 2, p. 402, pl. 41, fig. 6, 1902. 
“Dammara microlepis Heer (?).” Ball’s Point, Block Island. 
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 11, p. 57, pl. 3, figs. 9a, b, 1898. At 
the time when these two specimens were described they were only 
referred provisionally to this species, in the following words: “The 
ones under consideration are, however, smaller than any which 
have been previously figured and might perhaps be referred toa 
new species, but in view of the limited amount of material and its 
fragmentary condition, I have thought it best to refer the speci- 
