45 
the case in respect to those smaller denticulate leaves which are less narrowed 
towards the apex, one of which is shown nature-printed in Fig. 11 in the work 
quoted above. The venation only is slightly different ; the secondary veins 
in the fossil leaf are somewhat more remote, and more bent. For these 
reasons I conclude that the described leaf is the remains of a species of 
Lomatict, which is nearest allied to the Lomatia longifolia at present existing 
in Australia, and, in fact, its ancestor. 
The genus Lomatia can undoubtedly be traced in the European Tertiary 
Flora through fruits and leaves. Among described species of that flora the 
L. borealis, Ilcer, from the Miocene Baltic Flora comes nearest to the above 
species, but is distinguished by its more approximate secondary veins. 
The Tertiary Flora of North America also contains a species of Lomatia, 
which has been erroneously named Myrica Torreyi by Lesquereux.* The 
leaves of this species are very similar to those of the Lomatia latior, Heer, 
of the Baltic Flora, and possess likewise a marginal vein, which does not 
occur in Myrica. The fact that, as Lesquereux states, in the same layer in 
which his Myrica Torreyi occurs, fruits of Myrica were also found, is no 
reason for declaring the Lomatia leaves to bo Myrica , inasmuch as in that 
layer occur genuine Myrica leaves, to which the fruits referred to undoubtedly 
belong, and in addition also other remains which Lesquereux does not hold 
to be Myrica. 
The living Lomatia longifolia and the fossil Australian L. prcelongi- 
folia have not rigid but only subcoriaceous leaves ; the American L. Torreyi, 
Lesq., corresponds to both in this respect, but is distinguished by its more 
numerous secondary veins. 
* Lesquereux, Contributions to the Fossil Flora of the Western Territories. Part II. The Tertiary 
Flora, p. 129, PL XVI, figs. 3-10. The leaves figured have, in general, it is admitted, the form of leaf and 
dentation of Myrica, but at the same time a venation which is unknown in either living or fossil Myrica leaves. 
But as there are a great number of other different plants which have the same form of leaf as the latter, it is 
difficult to understand why these fossils have been brought under Myrica rather than under Lomatia, notwith- 
standing that the venation points by no means to Myrica, but directly to Lomatia ; and notwithstanding also 
that Lesquereux quite correctly refers to Lomatia latior, Heer, with which, even as regards the venation, the 
leaf fossils in question show so much resemblance, that the identity of the species might be assumed. Lesquereux 
ascribes a thin membranous texture to the leaves of his Myrica Torreyi. On the other hand, the figures 
published by him show rather a strong or almost coriaceous texture. The midrib of the leaves is strong, their 
margins very prominent, especially when compared with the representations given by Lesquereux of, for example, 
delicate portions of the Sphenopteris nigricans, loc. cit., PI. XI, fig. 4 ; of the leaf of the Xyssa lanceofata, loc. cit., 
PI. XXXV, fig 5, or of the leaflets of Sapindus angustifolius, PI. XLIX, figs. 2 7. On the other hand, the dentate 
margin of the coriaceous leaf of the Dryandroides Cleburni (Quercus, Lesq.), PI. XX, fig. 2, does not appear more 
prominent than the margin of the leaf in the drawings of the Myrica Torreyi. Hence, I conclude, relying on 
the well known truthfulness of Lesquereux’s drawings, that the consistence of the fossil leaves in question must 
have been, not membranous, but rather coriaceous. This would render its correspondence with Lomatia latior, 
Heer, which has a coriaceous texture, still more striking, and remove all doubt as to the near affinity, if not 
identity, of these fossils. The species of Lomatia named from the Miocene Baltic Flora, has somewhat smaller 
leaves, and more approximate, less branching secondary veins than the L. Torreyi. On this alone must rest, at 
present, whatever specific difference there be, until a complete material shall render further elucidation possible, 
and thus prove conclusively that the Proteacere were not wanting even in the North American Tertiary Flora. 
