374 The American Geologist. June, 1902. 
he did, but I am not certain whether he succeeded in dispos- 
ing of any of them, though my impression is that Yale, se- 
cured one of them.” He also states that “when Dr. Ries was 
making his survey of Orange county he sent in a report about 
this seaweed” and further that “we have a memorandum of 
material collected by Mr. Van Deloo in 1870 which must 
indicate about the date at which this. material was brought 
to the attention of this office’.* In a later letter Dr. Clarke 
stated that “The large alga, doubtless that with which you 
‘are acquainted, lay at some distance from those unearthed 
later but all were in the sanie Monroe shales. From what 
Mr. Cooley told me (he seemed to recall your visit) your 
specimen was that from which his father sent fragments to 
Halk?4 
In the summer of 1890, the writer visited Monroe and 
studied the geology of Skunnemunk mountain to the north- 
west of that town. Near the base of the mountain about one 
and one half miles northwest of Monroe, a small quarry on 
the farm ot Mr. Ogden Cooley was examined. In a paper 
entitled “Notes on the geology of Skunnemunk Mountain, 
Orange county, New York,” the writer after briefly de- 
scribing the location and rocks of this quarry stated that 
“Fossil wood was also found near this ledge which was 
apparently contained in a concretion and>called the ‘fossil 
trees’ by Mr. Cooley. The specimen obtained from this 
locality has been studied by Professor F. H. Knowlton, As- 
sistant Paleontologist of the U. S. Geological Survey, and 
he identifies it as Celluloaylon primevum Dn.”’= Part of the 
specimen was later submitted to professor Penhallow who 
published a paper entitled “Notes on Nematophyton crassum” 
based upon this material and specimens of Celluloxylon prim- 
aevuim from the type locality of Hopewell, near Canandaigua, 
N. Y. As a result of this study professor Penhallow wrote 
as follows: “Comparing these specrnens with the type of 
Nematophyton crassum we find they agree with it in all 
respects except the absence of intercellular filaments from the 
former and their presence in the latter. But this difference 
may safely be attributed to the operation of greater alteration 
* Letter of March 28, 1902. 
+ Lettcr of April 2, 1902. 
+ Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. xi, 1892, p. 139. 
