408 



MEMOIRS OF THE XEW YORK BOTAXICAL GARDEX 



Genus Cissampelos Linnaeus 

 Cissampelos dubiosa n. sp. 

 Plate 37, figures 4, 5 (6, 7?) ; plate 39, figuee 4 



Cissampelos Hollick, Summary Kept. {loc. cif.), p. 135. 



Leaves reniform in shape, slightly inequilateral, broader 

 than long, 6.5 to 8 centimeters in maximum width by 4.5 to 6 

 centimeters in length, broadest below the middle, rounded below 

 to a truncate, subeordate base ; margin lobate-dentate, or 

 coarsely crenate or wavy-dentate in the upper part, entire 

 toward the base; nervation distinctly 3-palmate from the base, 

 the lateral primaries branched from their outer sides, ascending, 

 and supporting basilar secondaries that more or less simulate 

 exterior lateral primaries, thus giving the appearance of 4- or 

 5-palmate nervation; secondary nervation camptodrome or ob- 

 scurely paryphodrome. 



AMiether or not these leaves should be regarded as generi- 

 cally, or even as specifically distinct from Ccbatha multiformis, 

 the species last described, may perhaps be an open question. 

 The specimen upon which the original generic identification was 

 tentatively based {loc. cit.) is represented by figure 4 on plate 

 39, which may be compared with the existiiig species Cissampelos 

 mic)ocarpaJ)e Candolle (or C. Pareira Linnaeus ?), represented 

 by FIGURE 5, PLATE 46, drawn from a specimen collected on the 

 island of Hispaniola. The specimen represented by figure 3, 

 PLATE 46, is another one of the same species, collected in Porto 

 Eico, and this may be seen to compare so closely with our speci- 

 mens represented by figut.es 4 and 5, plate 37, that generic rela- 

 tionship, at least, can hardly be doubted. 



The fragmentary specimens represented by figures 6 and 7, 

 PLATE 37, may belong either with Cissampelos or with Cehatha, 

 or with Menispermuni, and their inclusion under Cissampelos 

 dubiosa is to be regarded as open to cpiestion. 



The genus Cissampelos does not appear to have been recog- 

 nized in paleobotany previous to its identification as an element 

 in the flora of the Saint Eugene silts, hence there are no avail- 

 able descrii^tions or illustrations of any fossil forms with which 

 comparisons with our specimens may be made. 



In order tliat the difficulty attaching to any satisfactory 

 generic identification of our specimens may be appreciated I 



