DE. HEEE ON THE EOSSIL ELOEA OE BOVET TEACET. 
1059 
LXIII. fig. 9 shows us a petiole 14 millims. in length, in which it ditfers from Q.furvi- 
nervis. The pieces represented in Plate LXVIII. figs. 4 & 5 show us that the apex of 
the leaf was very long. The piece represented in fig. 5 had a very tapered apex. The 
broad leaves have a pretty strongly midulated margin (Plates LXIV. fig. 1 a, and LXIII. 
fig. 7, magnified 7 h) without forming teeth. The median nerve is strong and straight. 
Numerous secondary nerves spring from it at an angle of 50°. They are rather strongly 
curved, and reach nearly to the margin, where they fork, and the upper branch bends 
forward and, rrmning parallel with the margin to the next following secondary nerve, 
joins it. The lower branch of the fork is very small and slender, or quite wanting in 
slightly undulated leaves, and at the places where the undulation is wanting. This 
course of the secondary nerves is very characteristic of our species, as of Q. furmnervis 
and Q. imdulata. The areas are dmded mto secondary areas by continuous, sometimes 
forking nervules. A polygonal reticulation may be perceived in them, which encloses 
a still more delicate one (cf. Plate LXIII. fig. 7 b). 
Kossmasslee has described two forms of leaves from Altsattel as Phyllites furvi- 
nervis and Ph, cuspidatiis. The latter differs from the former in the undulated margin 
(which is not toothed), and the long tapering point. As I also got fromWeissenfels the 
toothed form with an elongated point, I formerly united Ph. cusjpidatus with Ph. furvi- 
nervis (cf. Beitrage zur nahern Kenntniss der sachsisch-thiiring. Braunkohlen-fiora, von 
O. Heee ; Abhandlungen des naturw. Vereins fiir die Provinz Sachsen und Thiiringen, ii. 
p. 424), and I described the form with the narrow leaves as Q. furvinervis cuspidata. 
But as at Bovey there is found only the form with the undulated leaves, and as there is 
a petiole (which is not preserved with the leaves of Altsattel) which by its length gives 
us a new distinctive character for Phyllites cuspidatus, I have separated it from Ph. fur- 
vinervis. The name given by Kossmasslee could not be retained, as there is already a 
Quercus cuspidata, Thunb. The principal distinction between Q. Lyelli and Q. furvi- 
nervis consists in the length of the petiole, and in the latter species having undulated 
leaves. 
Further examination, and a comparison of more copious material, will show if these 
differences are specific or not. They belong, at all events, to the same type, which was 
very frequent in the Lower Miocene period, and of which similar species are still living in 
Mexico (for instance, Q. xalapensis, Thunb.). Quercus undulata, O. Weber* (Palseonto- 
graph. ii. p. 170, pi. 19. figs. 1, 2 « & J), is also a very similar species. In the undulated 
margin, and the manner in which the secondary nerves run,’ it is like Q. Lyelli ; but the 
median nerve of this species is straight and much stronger, not undulated ; the secondary 
nerves are more numerous, and spring at less acute angles. 
I still doubt if the leaf represented in Plate LXIII. fig. 7 belongs to the species in 
• The leaves (pi. 19. fig. 2a&h) in Webee’s ‘ Abhandlung ’ belong, according to my opinion, also to 
Quercus undulata, and are different from Q. Ocepperti (pi. 19. fig. 2 c), in wbicb the leaf is rounded at the 
base. I may mention that the leaf which Litdwig (Palseontogr. viii. pi. 34. figs. 1-4) has represented as 
Q. furvinervis, belongs to another species. 
