51 
Genus, cephalotaxopsis Fontaine 
Cephalotaxopsis magnifolia Fontaine 
Cephalotaxopsis magnifolia Fontaine, U.S. Geol. Surv., Mon. 15, p. 336, 
Pl, 104, figs. 4, 5; PL 105, figs. 1, 2, 4; Pl. 106, figs. 1, 3; Pl. 107, 
figs. 1, 2, 4; Pl. 108, figs. 1, 3 , 4 (1890): Idem., 19th Ann. Rept., 
pt. 2, p. 686, PL 162, fig. 16; PL 169, figs. 3, 4 (1899). 
Berry, Lower Cretaceous, p. 377, PL 60, fig. 1 (1911). 
Tbis remarkably fine species also includes parts of what Fontaine 
called Cephalotaxopsis ramosa and what Ward called Cephalotaxopsis 
rhytidodes. When well preserved it is readily determined and fine speci- 
mens are known from the Patuxent formation of Virginia. When poorly 
preserved it is liable to be confused with a variety of plants and especially 
with Nageiopsis angustifolia. The latter has parallel veins, whereas there 
is a single midrib in Cephalotaxopsis. The latter may be described as 
follows: branches stout, more or less branched. Leaves distichous in 
habit, but probably spiral in phyllotaxy, strikingly like those of the modern 
Cephalotaxus. Linear lanceolate in outline, rather abruptly rounded at 
the base, and tapering gradually upward, mucronate pointed. Length 2 to 
6 cms., averaging 4 or 5 cms. Width 3 or 4 nuns. Texture coriaceous. 
The midrib is broad and flat, occupying about one-seventeenth of the 
diameter of the leaf, and the stomata are confined to a sunken band on 
either side of the midrib. The species is known from the Patuxent, 
Lakota, and Fuson formations. 
Occurrence. Lower Blairmore; locality CH5. 
Genus, athrotaxopsis Fontaine 
Athrotaxopsis grandis Fontaine 
Plate VIII, figures 4-6 
Athrotaxopsis grandis Fontaine, U.S. Geol. Surv., Mon. 15, p. 240, PL 114, 
figs. 1-3; Pl. 116, figi?. 1-4; Pl. 135, fig. 10 (1890): Idem., 48, 
pi 546 (1906). 
Berry, Lower Cretaceous, p. 441, Pl. 76; Pl. 77, fig, 6 (1911). 
To this species are also referred what Fontaine called Athrotaxopsis 
temdcaulis, and pachyphylla. This genus was named from its resemblance 
to the existing genus Athrotaxis Don which has three species in the Tas- 
manian region. The name is retained, not because I regard it as indicating 
such a botanical relationship in the fossils, but merely as a convenience so 
as not to obscure their chronological significance. All it denotes is some 
conifer with spirally arranged, appressed, pointed leaves, copiously 
branched, with slender, cylindrical twigs, and small, terminal, spheroidal 
cones of few cuneate truncate scales. 
In the absence of cones these twigs are not certainly distinguishable 
from what has been called W iddringtonites ramosus (Fontaine) Berry, 
Sphenolepis kurriana (Dunker) Schenk, Sequoia condita Lesquereux, or 
various other forms referred to the nominal genera Echinostrobus Schimper, 
Arthrotaxites Unger, and Cyparissidium Heer. Fortunately the Lower 
