38 FLORA OF SOUTHERN NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND. 



Final Report of the Geology of Massachusetts , vol. 2, 1841, pi. 19, figs. 4, 5, and it is 

 interesting to recall that he recognized their probable coniferous relationships in the 

 following words (loc. cit., p. 430): 



Figs. 4 and 5 represent different individuals of another variety of vegetable remains. * * * These are 

 not mere impressions ; but a scale of carbonaceous matter, mixed with amber, marks the spot where the vege- 

 table was imprisoned. The amber occupies longitudinal ridges, which in the plate are represented by white 

 stripes. It seems to me very obvious that these remains must be the seed vessels of coniferous plants. The 

 amber shows that they abounded in resin. * * * " 



David White was the next to describe and figure specimens from the same locality, 

 in the American Journal of Science, vol. 39, 1890, p. 98, pi. 2, figs. 9, 10, which he 

 referred to Eucalyptus Geinitzi Heer, remarking that the longitudinal furrows filled 

 with resin " doubtless are the remains of gum or oil vessels, such as exist in the nuts 

 of recent Eucalypts. 77 His figures are reproduced on PL II, figs. 6, 15. A number 

 of similar specimens were previously described and figured by Velenovsky, from the 

 Cretaceous of Bohemia, as the fruit of Eucalyptus Geinitzi, a all more or less closely 

 associated with leaves of that species, although subsequently the same author 

 referred what are apparently specimens of the same to Damrnara oorealis Heer. a Heer 

 was himself also apparently in doubt on the subject of their generic relationship, inas- 

 much as he says, in regard to Damrnara, microlepis (loc. cit., p. 55), that it u has a 

 resemblance io the flower buds of Eucalyptus Geinitzi. " 



Newberry, in discussing the probable botanical relationship of specimens from the 

 Cretaceous of New Jersey, on pp. 46, 47 of the Flora of the Amboy Clays (loc. cit.), 

 says : 



In his Flora Fossilis Arctica (loc. cit.) Professor Heer describes and figures the scales of a cone of a conifer 

 which very much resemble those of Damrnara australis, and yet there are some reasons for doubting the accu- 

 racy of his reference. It may also be said that the fruit scales which he calls Eucalyptus Geinitzi * * * are 

 without doubt generically the same. ■* * * The considerations which have led me to doubt whether these 

 cone scales are those of Damrnara are that we have found no Dammara-like leaves associated with them, 

 whereas in one locality in New Jersey they occur in great numbers mingled with and apparently attached to the 

 branchlets of an extremely delicate conifer much like Heer's Juniperus macilenta. * * * Another reason 

 for doubting whether these are the scales of a species of Damrnara is that in some of them traces of two seeds 

 are apparently visible, while in Damrnara there is but one seed under each scale. 



The association of cone scales and branchlets above mentioned was not figured, 

 but specimens were recently found in a collection from Woodbridge, N. J., with 

 labels in Doctor Newberry's handwriting, in which the association is well shown, and 

 the probable identity of the branchlets with a species of Juniperus, probably J. 

 Tiypnoides Heer, is strongly indicated, although any former actual living connection 

 between them can not be determined. 



Another instance of close association of similar scales with angiospermous leaves 

 is described and figured by F. Krasser, under Eucalyptus Geinitzi, from the Creta- 

 ceous of Moravia, d but the proof of any actual connection between them is appar- 

 ently no more satisfactory than in the other instance noted, or than is indicated on 

 our PL II, fig. 11, where a scale of Damrnara is shown superimposed on a fragment of 

 Poacites. 



a Fl. Bohm. Kreideform., pt. 4, 1885, p. 1 (62), pi. 1 (24), figs. 1, 2; pi. 2 (25), figs. 6-11; pi. 4 (27), fig. 13 in part. 



6 Abh. K. Bohm. Gesellsch. Wiss., vol. 3 (Kvet. Cesk. Cenomanu), 1889, p. 7, pi. 1, figs. 28, 29. 



cSee PL II, figs. 26 in part, 27b, 28. 



dBeitr. Pal. Oestr.-Ung., vol. 10, pt.3 (Kreidefl. Kunstadt), 1896 , p. 134 (22), pi. 16 (6), figs. 3, 6. 



