198 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST [Von. XL 
mens provisionally to Heer’s species.” I am now satisfied that 
they belong to the new genus and species hereafter described and 
they are included, for comparison, on Plate 1, Figs. 12, 13. 
“Dammara Northportensis sp. nov.” Little Neck, Northport 
Harbor, Long Island. Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard., vol. 3, p. 405, pl. 
70, figs. 1, 2,1904. A figure of this species is reproduced on Plate 
1, Fig. 4. 
“Dammara (?) Cliffwoodensis n. sp.” Cliffwood,N. J. Trans. 
N.Y. Acad. Sei., vol. 16, p. 128, pl. 11, figs. 5-8, 1897. A figure 
of the type specimen of this species is reproduced on Plate 1, Fig. 3. 
This species may also be found described and figured by Mr. 
Edward W. Berry in his “Flora of the Matawan Formation (Cross- 
wick’s Clays),”! and again in a subsequent paper on ‘“ Additions 
to the Flora of the Matawan Formation”;? but the figures more 
nearly resemble D. borealis than they do the species to which they 
are referred, and the author himself remarks, in regard to the one 
last mentioned (p. 70): “The specimen is an unusually perfect 
one.... In outline and size it is very similar to the scale from 
Tottenville referred by Hollick to Dammara borealis Heer.” 
Finally may be mentioned the species described and figured by 
Dr. F. H. Knowlton, under the name Dammara acicularis, in his 
“Fossil Plants of the Judith River Beds,” ? which differs from all 
_ the other species in the possession of a well defined apical awn or 
spine, although in many of our individual specimens a similar 
feature, of smaller size, is present, and in others its former pres- 
ence is clearly indicated. 
If all the opinions expressed by the authors in the papers quoted, 
are analyzed it may be seen that a majority favor the idea that the 
scales are Coniferous and that their relationships are with Dam- 
mara, or with some other genus closely allied to it. Whether 
more than one species is represented in the various forms that 
have been described as such is a problem which yet remains to be 
solved and its solution will doubtless be attended with more or 
less difficulty, but the identification of the genus to which each 
form belongs should be a comparatively easy task, provided the 
t Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard., vol. 3, p. 61, pl. 48, figs. 8-11, 1903. 
? Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, vol. 31, p. 69, pl. 1, fig. 11, 1904. 
§ Bull. U. 8. Geol. Surv., no. 257, p. 134, pl. 15, figs. 2-5, 1905, 
