18 FLORA OF THE MONTANA FORMATION. 
This species was first described from the Eaton Mountains, New 
Mexico, but it has since been found to be the most widely distributed 
and abundant plant fossil of the Upper Cretaceous of the Rocky Moun- 
tain region. It has by some been held to characterize the Laramie 
group, but as it has been found from the middle of the Colorado 
formation to the Eocene, it is manifestly worthless for indicating 
exact age. 
It was found, in a collection made by Mr. T. W. Stanton in Huerfano 
Park, Colorado, in sandstone between the Fort Benton shales and the 
Niobrara limestone of the Colorado formation. It was also found by 
Mr. Stanton to be abundant in theDurango coal field, Colorado, where 
it occurs in a brownish sandstone below the coal and associated with 
numerous marine shells (Inoceramus, Cardium, etc.) of undoubted Fox 
Hills age. 
According to Prof. J. J. Stevenson, 1 it characterizes what he identi- 
fies as the Fox Hills formation of Colorado, occurring abundantly from 
the bottom to the top of this series as exposed along the South Platte, 
at Greeley, Canyon, and southward near Trinidad. The horizons at 
these places have usually been referred to the base of the Laramie, but 
the correctness of this is not without some question. 
This species was obtained by Prof. F. B. Meek at Coalville, Utah, 
and was also found by Mr. Stanton during his later investigations of 
this interesting region. It has been found in abundance at Black 
Bnttes, Carbon, Evanston, Fort Steele, and Point of Rocks, in Wyom- 
ing, and at Golden (Denver group *?), at the mouth of the St. Yrain 
Creek, and at other places in Colorado. 
The presence of H. minor Fisch.-Ost., in American strata seems to 
depend entirely on a single fragment less than 1 inch long found asso- 
ciated in the same beds with H. major at Raton Mountains. This 
specimen has never been in the Museum collection and its whereabouts 
is unknown. It is said to differ from H. major by its smaller size and I 
flattened tubercles. A comparison of the figures of the two species 
given by Lesquereux in Tertiary Flora (PI. I, figs. 8 and 9 ) shows 
that H. minor is really larger than one of the types of H. major, and, 
so far as can be made out from the figures, has exactly the same char- 
acter of tubercles. That it was regarded as extremely doubtful by 
Lesquereux himself is shown both by the question mark placed after it I 
and by the following statement in the original mention of the fossil: 2 
"As they are, however, found in connection with the former species 
(E. major), at least in the same beds of sandstone, they may represent 
mere divisions of it." I have therefore deemed it best to include it 
under H. major. 
Habitat. — As given on page 17. 
' Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., Vol. I, p. 532 (1890). 
2 Ann. Kept. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. Terr., 1872, p. 374 (1873). 
