MEDINAN, NIAGAEAN, AND CHESTER FOSSILS 
117 
in the Chester at Sample, in Breckenridge county, Kentucky. 
In the State Museum of Natural History at Springfield, Illinois, 
there is a specimen of Dictyophlois, numbered 1718, labelled as 
coming from the Chester group, at Carroll’s place, in Pope county, 
Illinois. This specimen is described and figured on the following 
pages. I have been informed by Dr. David White that Stig- 
marian roots of the Dictyophlois type are known also in Appa- 
lachian areas, in strata of Chester age. 
Whether Dictyophlois is to be regarded as founded on differ- 
ences of generic value can not be determined until its relationship 
to known aerial stems has been definitely established. In our 
present state of knowledge it appears to be as distinct as many 
another genus. Certainly, the reticulated appearance of the 
area between the attachment areas of the so-called rootlets 
looks quite different from the corresponding relatively smooth 
area in Stigmaria ficoides. 
If a knowledge of the bark and wood structure of the so-called 
roots or rhizophores of Dictyophlois and of Stigmaria ficoides 
were known, it would be possible to determine what is the sig- 
nificance of the reticulated structure on the supposed surface of 
Dictyophlois. No specimens showing such structure are at 
hand. Therefore, I am forced to base my opinions on such 
features as are exposed merely by impressions of the surface in 
its present condition, without any knowledge as to whether these 
features belong to the original surface of the bark, or to more 
deep seated structures within this bark. 
The American specimens of Dictyophlois do not appear to be 
identical specifically with Stigmaria ficoides stellata as figured 
by Goeppert. The reticulations between the attachment areas 
of the rootlets appear more complicated, although a change of 
opinion might be necessary if actual specimens of the European 
form were at hand. 
The figure accompanying the original illustration of Dictyo- 
phlois reticulata unfortunately was printed in an inverted position, 
as the location of the shadows might indicate. It was also 
printed altogether too pale to bring out all of the structure. This 
is remedied by the illustrations of the Illinois specimen here 
presented. 
