92 
manuscript 365 species of plants from these beds, and that there appears 
to be a considerable difference in facies between the lower and upper 
part of the Puget, with some uncertainty as to the age of the latter. 
The collection from Kitsilano was made from sections exposed along 
the coast near that place, on the south side of English bay, near Vancouver. 
They are stratigraphically about 4,000 feet above the base of the Puget 
and are separated from the lower beds exposed at Burrard inlet by a thick 
conglomerate. The collection contains the 21 species listed in the table 
of distribution. Like the corresponding floras from Washington, the 
fossil plants from Kitsilano are unlike those from the lower beds at Burrard 
inlet, the only species that they have in common being the doubtfully 
identified palm rays which I have referred to Sdbalites campbellii . Un- 
doubtedly some geological time is involved in this apparent change in 
facies and the thickness of the intervening sediments, but it would require 
large collections to make an estimate of the time represented. 
Seven of the Kitsilano plants are common to the Joseph Creek locality; 
10 are found at other localities in British Columbia; 10 are common to 
the Kenai flora of Alaska, and 2 others are found in beds of corresponding 
age to the Kenai in western Greenland. Four are found in strata as old 
as the Fort Union of the United States; one occurs in the Green River 
beds; and three in the Clarno. Not one is common to definitely recognized 
Oligocene or Miocene strata. The conclusion that the beds at Kitsilano 
are Eocene is strongly indicated, and this would seem also to be the age 
of the flora found in the upper part of the Puget group in Washington. 
Just what stage of the Eocene is perhaps not determinable at the present 
time. I would regard it as late Eocene, but older than the Clarno. 
The table of distribution tells an approximately similar story for the 
floras described from Newhykulston, Joseph, and Darlington creeks, in the 
Chu Chua area. I regard all of these floras as considerably younger than 
the Fort Union-Paskapoo, and younger even than the Green River or Sauk 
formations of the United States, these being of approximately the same 
age, and belonging to the Middle Eocene. 
The precise age limits of the continental lignitic deposits referred to the 
Kenai formation are not precisely known, but I consider that, in a general 
way, these scattered British Columbia floras are of the same age as those of 
the Puget group on the one hand, and that of the Kenai on the other. This 
would make them about synchronous with the Jackson flora of the Atlantic 
coastal plain, or, in terms of European chronology, Bartonian-Ludian. 
There is no definite evidence that the Kenai, Puget, or the floras 
described in the following pages may not have crossed the Eocene-Oligocene 
boundary, and that they may not be in part Oligocene — there are no known 
extensive Oligocene floras near enough for comparison, that from the 
Oligocene of the southeastern United States being so much farther south 
and living under such different environmental conditions that it is not 
comparable. The most that can be said is that the Kenai, Puget, and the 
floras described in the following pages, are older than the Clarno flora of 
Oregon. This was originally and mistakenly considered to be Miocene, 
and has long been considered Eocene, although I am informed by R. W. 
Chaney, who is studying it under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution, 
that it may be slightly younger than Eocene, but unmistakably pre- 
Miocene. 
