KEPT. 1910. J 



FUJIL-SOME REMARKS ON THE CRET. FLORA ETC. 211 



pittings on the radial walls of the raj' cells are also alike 

 (Hoelick and Jeffrey I.e. fig. 2.) and afford a very strong 

 additional proof that Yezonia is a plant of Araucarian affinity ; 

 but here the pits which are roundish in shape are arrang- 

 ed more regularly than in Br achy phy Hum, and are found, as 

 far as we have observed usually in two rows of three in each 

 cross-field of the ray cells. 



But if Brachyphylloideas is to be associated with Protodam- 

 mara, where the ovules seem to be free from the scale, and if 

 Yezonia and Yezostrohus belonged to the same species, then 

 our plant whose ovules are adherent to the scale as in Arau. 

 caria, is probably to be put under a separate subfamily, which 

 will stand side by side with Brachyphylloideae Hollick et 

 Jeffrey. Protoarauc areas may be proposed, to include this 

 plant, as a subfamily of the family Araucariinas of Eichler. (1) 



A further investigation of Yezostrohus I hope will show the 

 real nature of pittings of the wood elements. 



In accordance with the new fact and the considerations 

 made above, the diagnosis of Yezonia and Yezostrohus must 

 naturally undergo certain changes. To the diagnosis of 

 Yezonia, the Araucrian nature of pittings must be added ; 

 and the height of the medullary rays may be one of the 

 points distinguishing the present species. 



To the diagnosis of Yezostrohus, the statement of the 

 inverted ovule adherent to the seminiferous scale, and the 

 breaking down of the ripe cone as the scales detach from the 

 cone axis must be added. 



Now that it became clear that Yezostrohus and Yezonia be- 

 longed to Araucariinae their rather common occurrence as 

 well as the presence of Araucarioxylon Tankoense Stopes and 

 Fujn show that the members of Araucariinae were also forming 

 a characteristic feature of vegetation of our Upper Cretaceous. 



The Araucariinae presents probably an old group of Coni- 

 fers as is maintained by Seward, Scott, and others. But 



(1) As it was noted before, I have not seen the full memoir by Hollick and 

 Jeffrey, so I doubt whether a subfamily, in which we may well put our plant, 

 was already established by Hollick and Jeffrey. 



