198 



THE AMERICAN NATURALIST 



[Vol. 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, j>l 

 70, jigs. 1, 2, 1904. A figure of this species is reproduced on Plate 

 1, Fig. 4. 



"Dammara (f) Cliffwoodensis n. sp." Cliffwood, N. J. Trans. 

 N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 16, p. 128, pi. 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 acicidaris, 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 flifficulty, but the identification of the genus to which each 

 form belongs should be a comparatively easy task, provided the 



' Bull. N. Y. Bot. Gard., vol. 3, p. 61, pi. 48, fi^s. 8-11, 1903. 



2 Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, vol. 31, p. 69, pi. 1, fig. 11, 1904. 



" Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., no. 257, p. 134, pi. 15, figs. 2-5, 1905. 



