‘sadiedavshiamay cmv savanna tee
aca stanssngmmysayhemsnene
Sieasievenese tei
1
t
(i ‘v Pa
, vy a
Na if, i iu,
ae La Ki iy!
elu ON oan
if
nt
ea
Dye Me
At aK
BOS
Wiehe dees,
NG ie
" 5 ; 5 Fd ¥ , ? ‘ ’
' en jh ; Mi.
A i ee oo ' : ‘ ‘J , r 4 1) Ate
i , aes } . l Ful a ag
it Are & é 1 se
14 & bi Mi
HE ‘ , i rr
A “i ‘ j a ud | 5 ie
CA fie: ‘
et ue : , Xa ee
4 i hb: . * ' \ ug é ¢
Pe Fe Be
F 4 op t ‘ .
.
\ ! pil an Pl).
i =a
VACG .
( if ' i
Al j rin?
' F , ' ‘ae
Bel
ay }
ANEOUS DOCUMENTS iam
¥
f Y Ae i , APs
ih Mh | pane ‘
f i ee ‘i i Dare om
5 ’ 7, / * ri Fr
PAA A LOATH mit , .
Laer EPL SUN TL REY Rs :
AD) RANE ied ere Le
i cw Pel Pe a
RON OTE PORE. SEVENTH CORREA RG
las
: be a Hi ‘7 ) A
ie ‘ vi
ioe
}
AWAY
VAP RP ee ET a ae Oe 8 OC) a Aen ai
et a . oe 1D
Fal
ir d
RA A J
We tye) sh an ' i 14
Let > ' 4 :
q an. A 7 er i ; z "
ee Oe cael Nn ¥7 i }
e a Yager % 7. M4 » a % ‘
COR TMA WaT tenis)
Ait ely
Se 4 ay held oe La
isu ON Mii
LA rag D yi
Leal ae ae fy
*. p ny “a
4 Rae edn ;
i TALE. rere ah
ee a tea ar
hie. LAR)” 7
@e any ae i
Pot wy SNe Oe Ee
ii ve : “ ae
4 , ‘ar i
z aa ty
Re Ps
ne Mis ia es Nee
* , 1
i ess 4% DAA ee
PR a wana) os
‘ eis Lc | De pe ey
a Cah gs iar
end’
ob . a z
r a fe ae
7 a
Ciel ant
nS.
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE
SECOND SESSION OF THE FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS,
1882-°83.
VOLUME 14.
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1883.
4 ¥ ~ : A , x , ; | cy 7 . : ; F; ae
RTI TTI AR EE Us ORR SO
mi wae 3 ; Fa rene Tet
e
;
f a: 44 Ehime ;
CMR eRe 5) eae
me ae
—_— iby
P| ty ee
a
a ;
*. ‘%
OD eae Tibae 4
. a at } thre Es Eis rue ‘ae # ri Ni ih Pts
47TH CONGRESS, )} HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Mis. Doc.
2d Session. § No. 43.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MONOGRAPHS
OF THE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
WOT OMB vi
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1883
Behe e mits
yor ‘tg ? Mi i
¢
Sela ee
Te. '
v
ne’
vie |
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
J. W. POWELL DIRECTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS
TO TEE KNOW EE DGGE, OF THE
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA
By WILLIAM MORRIS FONTAINE
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1883
As
ah
ieee :
ie P)
M
University oF Virani, Va,
August 20, 1882.
Sir: I herewith transmit the manuscript and plates of my memoir on
“The Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia.” :
The work is based upon the study of a number of plants obtained after
several years of diligent search in the older Mesozoic strata of Virginia.
The many difficulties attending the collection of fossils from these beds
show that the plants here described form but a small fragment of what was
evidently a rich flora. Still the list is sufficient, I think, to give us a fair
idea of its general character. -
I am, with respect, your obedient servant,
WM. M. FONTAINE.
Hon. J. W. Powe .1,
Director United States Geological Survey.
le Bs a
7 4 matt FP Rie hE > d
; Beghe ' : Gita j : ae D we Vays;
y ny ety Sal dcloe eS
sh haces ct) ail Ne, Tee
‘ : , n oe < 7. if a es
‘ : ‘ y Bee)
a aha: ep Ae Tawa Or ea alert
“ ' bell + ary)
‘ ‘ iG tarot. } ¢
m : f - P PAF Vike d wae > bine 38
4 + rm
* “a
CO NEw NE S:.
Page.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ....- Semitese Pinca eee ett aa cele nen eae Ceeamenometencee coos eres atee Vv
PART St. — Dan GhOLOGY, OFTHE MESOZOIC ARMAS <.o.2- cemcnci-sm= ac eseceneeesteisa- se. oaanee 1
eG CMOSSIL) MORAG sc an heneimnine sation occa candace me see eae ean oe oeee Glee aeiae celce oe 10
Deseriptionofpuhe species -..5= 5-2-0 ss- sce ee ewe ceh ees ea lien scenietesaabecmes 10
TUtSLOM CYCROS esac cosas sie sats emesseecr asican = seen east owseus soca seeweceeeneece 85
Wndetermined plants. 2----.25--scset econ s costes. saceens Sages case seme censcee ee 90
General observations on the flora en -aaesse see weesieaee os one coe ee eee eens ee 92
IlI.—THE OLDER MEsozoic FLora OF NORTH CAROLINA ........--..--------------e2e-- 7
General) remarkslandiconelusionsys=-ser ee cence cours ee ees beso e econo scee eaeces 121
EXPLANATIONMON GP UATE enfec.celaain sca c cece is nn nine issiniedls oe cise cmon cutee nuseen eee ewewseeeee es 129
: é Ke he » Uae ,
. : Rae ile Aarne
ey .
= - aL) ’ rs d oD, Sous
: Md
tony ute vl de> bares seep ap hanes « Vrkere 4 ss Coe
> : ; ye ior fo bay wh
i. ‘ J wes weet eee hem me eee ee ly tw gh eset
a WF ieee
; ivtes
a i ‘ aera
ae joe st wl ates Spe ates: VLR E30 mat
= > Ny aa oe
Veer Oy ov PRADO Neen
ae ks th we | bette ets boa oye SUT Le
ri f &
: ee Ass : Per agin wow bye be bo nn ld eee
sy
r - =5 088
2
,
‘ -
P
?
Poth ws! Aa PLOW Ss.
PLATE T.—Schizoneura planicostata.
II.—Equisctum Rogersi.
IiI.—Macroteniopteris magnifolia.
IV.—Macrotzniopteris magnifolia.
V (double).—Macroteniopteris magnifolia.
Macrotzeniopteris crassinervis.
VI.—Macrotzeniopteris crassinervis.
Acrostichides linnefolius.
VII.—Acrostichides linnefolius.
Acrostichides microphyllus.
VIII.—Acrostichides linnefolius.
Acrostichides rhombifolius.
- IX.—Acrostichides linneefolius.
X.—Acrostichides densifolius.
Acrostichides microphyllus.
XI.—Acrostichides rhombifolius.
Acrostichides microphyllus.
XIJI.—Acrostichides rhombifolius.
Acrostichides microphyllus.
XIII.—Acrostichides rhombifolius.
Acrostichides rhombifolius, var. rarinervis.
XIV.—Acrostichides rhombifolius,
XV.—Mertensides distans.
Mertensides bullatus.
XVI.—Mertensides bullatus.
XVII.—Mertensides bullatus.
XVIII.—Mertensides bullatus.
XIX.—Mertensides bullatus.
Asterocarpus Virginiensis.
XX.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis.
XXI.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis.
Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var, obtusilobus.
XXII.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis.
XXIII.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis.
XXIV.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis.
Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus.
XXV.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus.
Asterocarpus platyrachis,
XXVI.—Asterocarpus platyrachis.
Asterocarpus penticarpus,
Pecopteris rarinervis.
Cladophlebis ovata.
Cladophlebis auriculata.
x ILLUSTRATIONS.
PLATE XXVII. —Cladophlebis rotundiloba.
Cladophlebis microphylla.
Cladophlebis ovata.
Cladophlebis pseudowhitbiensis.
XXVI1II.—Lonchopteris Virginiensis.
XXIX.—Lonchopteris Virginiensis.
Cladophlebis subfalcata. ,
XXX.—Pseudodanxopsis reticulata.
Sagenopteris rhoifolia.
Dicranopteris.
XXXI.—Pseudodanopsis nervosa.
Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa.
XXXII.—Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa.
Pterophyllum affine.
XXXIII.—Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa.
Podozamites Emmonsi.
Ctenophyllum taxinum.,
XXXIV.—Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa.
Ctenophyllum Braunianum.
XXXV.—Ctenophyllum Braunianum.
Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa.
XXXVI.—Pterophyllum inequale.
XXXVII.—Ctenophyllum Braunianum.
XXXVIII.—Ctenophyllum Braunianum.
Ctenophyllum truncatum.
XXXIX.—Ctenophyllum grandifolium.
Ctenophyllum giganteum.
XL.—Ctenophyllum grandifolium.
XLI (double).—Ctenophyllum grandifolium.
XLII (double).—Ctenophyllum grandifolium.
Podozamites tenuistriatus.
XLIII.—Sphenozamites Rogersianus.
Pterophyllum decussatum.
XLIV.—Sphenozamites Rogersianus.
Podozamites tenuistriatus,
Cycadites tenuinervis.
XLY (donble).—Sphenozamites Rogersianus.
Baiera multitida.
XLVI.—Baiera multifida.
XLVII.—Baiera multifida.
Cone of conifer.
Zamiostrobus Virginiensis.
Cheirolepis Miinsteri.
XLVIII.—Coniferons cone,
Bambusium ?
Stem of Cycad.
Undetermined plants.
Laccopteris Emmonsi.
Acrostichides Egyptiacus.
XLIX.—Lonchopteris oblongus.
Asterocarpus platyrachis.
Sphenozamites Rogersianus.
Sagenopteris rhoifolia.
Ctenophyllum Braunianum.
Acrostichides rhombifolius.
Equisetum Rogersi.
ILLUSTRATIONS.
PLATE XLIX.—Cheirolepis Miinsteri.
Araucarites Carolinensis.
Cladophlebis obtusiloba.
L.—Palissya Braunii.
Cheirolepis Miinsteri.
Pachyphyllum peregrinum.
LI.—Palissya Braunii.
Pterophyllum decussatum.
Cycadites acutus.
Palissya diffusa.
Palissya Carolinensis.
Laccopteris elegans.
Cycadites longifolius.
Baiera Miinsteriana,
LII.—Bambusium Carolinense.
Undetermined plant.
Actinopteris quadrifoliata,
Araucarites Carolinensis.
Zamiostrobus Enimonsi.
Otozamites Carolinensis.
LIII.—Baiera multifida.
Podozamites Emmonsi.
Cheirolepis Miinsteri.
Pterophyllum pectinatum.
Dioonites longifolius,
Pterophyllum spatulatum.
Equisetum Rogersi.
LIV.—Ctenophyllum Emmonsi.
Ctenophyllum lineare.
Ctenophyllum Braunianum.,
Ctenophyllum robustum.
Pseudodanopsis reticulata,
Pseudodanzopsis nervosa.
Asplenites Roésserti.
Zamiostrobus species ?
THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
BY WILLIAM M. FONTAINE.
PARE
THE GEOLOGY OF THE MESOZOIC AREAS.
The occurrence of the plants forming the flora of the older Mesozoic
beds of Virginia cannot be made intelligible without some account of the
strata that contain them. I shall give of the geology of the several Meso-
zoic areas only so much as will be necessary to show the characteristics of
the occurrence of the fossil plants found in them.
The Mesozoic beds of Virginia are all situated east of the Blue Ridge,
and most of them are found within the terrane of the crystalline Azoic
rocks. They lie on the eroded and upturned Azoic strata, and are formed
out of the material yielded by them. Two series of Mesozoic beds must
be distinguished from each other.
The older Mesozoic strata, those that contain the plants that form the
subject of this memoir, although very variable, yet have many features in
common that easily enable us to group them together. They now lie in
long narrow strips isolated from each other, and seem to have been depos-
ited in fresh, or at most, brackish water. Some of these areas were, at some
period in their history, in the form of marshes, or had such a character as
to permit the growth of an abundant vegetation and the accumulation of
considerable amounts of coal. In Virginia coal is found only in those areas
that lie farthest east.
1F 1
2 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
The younger Mesozoic strata have very little in common with those
just described, but by most geologists they have been grouped with them
as forming a portion of the so-called Trias of Virginia.
This group of younger Mesozoic beds forms an interrupted and narrow
belt, that extends north and south on the eastern margin of the Azoic rocks,
outcropping between them and the Tertiary formation. The beds of this
group show themselves, as a rule, only where the overlying Tertiary has
* been eroded away. In Virginia they are not known south of the city of
Petersburg.
Numerous plants are to be found inthem. These plants possess many
interesting features, and show that the flora of this group is totally different
from that of the older Mesozoic.
The areas occupied by the older Mesozoic beds, taken in order from
east to west, have the following locations:
The most easterly of these is the one that may be named the Rich-
mond Area, since its eastern edge passes about 10 miles west of Richmond.
This is by far the most important area of Mesozoic in Virginia, since it con-
tains nearly all the workable coal and yields nearly all of the plants found
in the older Mesozoic. It forms an elliptical belt which has its longer axis
directed a little east of north. For this reason to the north it is overlapped
by the Tertiary formation, since this latter extends with its western edge
almost due north and south. The length of the Richmond Area is about
30 miles, beginning at the south on the Appomattox River, and ending at
the north in Caroline County, about 3 miles north of Hanover Junction.
The average width is about 6 miles. This area shows a synclinal structure
in the Mesozoic strata, the rocks on the east side dipping northwest and
those on the west side dipping southeast. Coal has been worked on both
sides of this area. ‘The workings on the west side, however, are few and
confined to the vicinity of James River. The openings for coal on the
east side are more numerous and important. They are found on the extreme
northern end, exclusive of the portion in Hanover, and extend, but with
long intervals, to the extreme southern end.
That portion of this area that extends north of the Chickahominy
River, lying mostly in Hanover County, contains no workable coal. This
GEOLOGY OF THE MESOZOIC AREAS. 3
part, for the sake of distinction, may be called the Hanover Area. South of
the Chickahominy, and extending for some distance north and south of James
River, lies the main body of this Mesozoic area. As this contains all the
workable coal, this portion may be called the Richmond Coal Field. It
has afforded nearly all the plants described in this memoir. The following
localities, mentioned in the description of the plants, are the most important
sources of plant material, and are situated in this part of the area:
On the west side, near the village of Manakin, situated on the north
bank of James River, occur the Dover Mines A deep shaft sunk here for
the purpose of exploration, called the Aspinwall Shaft, has in the material
taken out afforded some fine plants. Many more, no doubt, might have
been obtained if I could have visited this shaft while it was being dug. I
did not examine the material taken out until many years afterwards, and
most of the impressions had been destroyed. It may be proper to state in
this connection that the plants described in this memoir are by no means a
measure of the richness of the flora of the beds yielding them. The work
of collecting them has been attended with many difficulties. Since about
1840 almost no shafting has been done. The coal has been mainly followed
by ‘‘inclines” from the outcrop, or raised through the old shafts; conse-
quently, now, one must depend for collections chiefly on the old “dumps,”
and most of the material on these is thoroughly decomposed. In the early
working of the coal in this field, as I learn from persons engaged in it, many
fine specimens were obtained, most of which are now lost. Prof. William
B. Rogers collected some of them, and gave some descriptions, and a few
figures, that are referred to in my descriptions of the species. Sir Charles
Lyell also obtained some that were described by Bunbury in the Quarterly
Journal of the Geological Society. So far as I know, this is all that has
been done in the way of figuring and describing these plants. Many of
Professor Rogers’s plants were not described, and I fear that the best por-
tion of his collections has been lost.
Carbon Hill is another locality that has yielded me some good material.
This is situated about six miles north of James River, on the eastern edge
of the area. Here I was fortunate enough to find some material that had
been taken out of a gangway cut to tap the lower coal bed. The roof
4 —THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
shales of this bed are rich in plants, but owing to the mode of working
the coal, which is confined mostly to the overlying bed, they are rarely
reached.
Deep Run is another locality that has yielded plants. It lies about 3
miles east of Carbon Hill, in a small detached strip of coal-bearing strata.
Midlothian, The Gowry, Black Heath, &c., are found some miles south of
James River on the eastern border of the area. They yield some fine
plants which, however, are collected with difficulty owing to the decom-
posed state of the material found on the old ‘‘dumps.”
Clover Hill, at the southeastern end of the Richmond Coal Field, is the
most important locality for the plants described in this memoir. Most of
the impressions obtained by me, and the best preserved of them, came from
this place. A tunnel was cut here recently to drain the water from one of
the main shaits, and from this a large amount of sound rock was taken.
Some of this shows good impressions of plants. Among these are the
largest and most perfect specimens figured in this work.
The Hanover Area has’ yielded some plants, mostly, as it seems, from
the same horizon as that of those from the Richmond Coal Field.
The Cumberland Area lies about 30 miles west of the Richmond Area.
The longer axis of this, and of all of the areas yet to be mentioned, lies in
a direction much more east, of north than does that of the Richmond Area.
In this case it runs about 25° east of north. This area begins on the south
in Prince Edward County, and extends northeast for 22 miles, lying mainly
in Cumberland County. Its southern end is much cut up by erosion, but
north of the Appomatox River it forms a continuous belt with an average
width of 14 miles. This area, in all its geological features, is closely allied
to the Richmond Area, and is in many features unlike the areas yet to be
described, that lie farther west. It contains some coal that locally is work-
able, and yields some plants. The number of plants from this area might,
no doubt, be largely increased were the strata exposed by working for coal.
As it is, there is very little exposure of them, and almost no search has been
made for the plants.
The Pittsylvania Area is a long and narrow belt, extending through
Pittsylvania County to the southern border of the State. It is continued
GEOLOGY OF THE MESOZOIC AREAS. 5
into North Carolina into the Dan River Coal Field. The longer axis of this
belt runs about 40° east of north. Its length is 62 miles and average
width 44 miles. The average width varies little from the maximum, and is
very uniformly maintained. It is then in form rather ribbon-shaped than
elliptical. In its geological features it differs considerably from the two
previously described areas, and is more like the Palisade, Area presently to
be mentioned. It has no coal beds, and has yielded no determinable plants.
No doubt they exist, but no considerable search has been made for them.
This is the most distant area from the Blue Ridge that shows any large
amount of the deep red strata so characteristic of some of the so-called
Trias of the eastern part of the United States. Here they form the lowest
beds.
The Buckingham Area is a small oval patch, lying on James River, in
the northern part of Buckingham County. It lies in the prolongation of
the Palisade Area. It is about 18 miles long, with an average width of
4 miles. No coal exists, and no plants have been found. A very large
proportion of the beds are coarse sandstones, conglomerates, and shales,
mostly of a deep red color.
The Palisade Area is the largest area of older Mesozoic in the State.
It forms a band, about 15 miles wide on the Potomac River where it enters
the State, that extends 80 miles to the southwest, parallel with the Blue
Ridge, and about 20 miles distant from it. This band narrows gradually
to the south, and ends in Orange County. It is the continuation of the
band of Mesozoic that begins at the Palisades on the Hudson River, and
extends southwest through New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Its geological character in Virginia is similar to that found farther north.
It enters Virginia between Point of Rocks, Maryland, and the mouth of
Seneca Creek on the Potomac. It contains no coal, and no plants have
been found, though search would probably reveal them. It is character-
ized by the large amount of red strata that it contains.
The determination of the details of the geology of these areas is very
difficult. The exposures are few and very poor, owing to the ease with
which the strata crumble to earth. The strata are exceedingly variable,
and often the same bed, traced horizontally, changes to something very
6 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
different in character. Nevertheless, certain broad features can be made
out, and these only will be given here.
The more westerly areas, such as the Pittsylvania, Buckingham, and
Palisade, contain no coal and possess a large proportion of red beds. The
more easterly areas, the Cumberland and Richmond, contain coal and
show little or no red beds. The amount of these red beds diminishes as
we leave the vicinity of the Blue Ridge.
The Cumberland Area contains much more of them than the Rich-
mond Area. In both of these the red strata, when found, occupy the
lowest horizon. The strata of all the areas may be divided into three
groups, and this division is most marked in the two coal-bearing areas.
The coal in these occurs in the middle group, and is accompanied by a
large proportion of black shales. The lowest beds of the two coal-bearing
areas are sandstones and shales, of a predominant gray color, but with some
red strata, which, however, in the Richmond Area are unimportant. The
upper group, or series, is without workable coal in these two areas. It
contains, however, in places, much lignite, which sometimes approaches jet
in character. Some silicified wood is found on this horizon. In general, the
upper strata of the Cumberland and Richmond Areas are loose granitic
sandstones or sandy shales. The granitic sandstones often contain the
ingredients of granite partly decomposed and unsorted. In some parts
deposits of bowlders occur among the upper beds. The stones are some-
times many feet in diameter, and seem to have been transported from a
distance. These bowlder deposits occur in all the areas, and on their
western margins. ‘The more western areas, the Buckingham, Pittsylvania,
and Palisade regions, show also the threefold grouping of the strata, but in
a less marked manner. Where plants and traces of coal occur in them
they are found in the middle member. This member contains a compara-
tively small amount of red beds. The beds are here often gray, or green-
ish-gray. The lower group of these areas is usually characterized by the
large amount of red strata present and the absence of traces of vegetable
matter except silicified wood. The upper group or member varies in
character with the locality, but it does not here (as in the coal-bearing
GEOLOGY OF THE MESOZOIC AREAS. 1
areas) show the granitic grits that are so conspicuous in them. The beds
are usually barren sandstones and shales, formed of well-sorted components.
The lowest group seems to correspond to a period of rather slow subsi-
dence and slow accumulation of sediment. In the period of the formation
of the middle member the conditions seem to have favored the growth of
vegetation, perhaps because the subsidence was slower. The coal-bearing
areas seem then to have been in the condition of a marsh. During the depo-
sition of the upper group the sinking of the areas seems to have been more
rapid, and the action of the water to have been sometimes quite violent if
not aided by ice in some localities.
Owing to the extensive explorations for coal, the geology of the Rich-
mond Area is much better known than that of any other. It is of much
more importance, as this area gives us nearly all the older Mesozoic plants.
It may also be taken as typical of the geology of the other areas. A few
details will be given now of the geological structure of this field.
As stated before it has a synclinal structure, but many facts go to show
that it did not possess this structure in its early history in such a marked
manner as now. It, like the other areas, was a progressively subsiding
region, probably, during most of the era of deposition.
The strata forming the lower group in the Richmond Coal Field are
mostly sandstones, rather coarse in texture, and sandy shales. They are
often much indurated and affected by ‘‘slickensides” and small local dis-
turbances. The lowest sandstones are not easily distinguished from the
underlying granitoid gneiss. The thickness of these beds varies much
with the locality in which they occur. It ranges from less than 100 feet
to 500 or 600 feet. These rocks are mainly of a gray color. The middle
group varies in thickness from 100 to 200 feet. Here a large proportion of
black shale occurs, some of which is very fine grained and so much indu-
rated as to approach in nature a slate. Both these beds and the included
coal show compression, local disturbances, “slickensides,” &c., but in a
less degree than the lower group. The number of the coal beds, their
thickness, and their quality, vary in different parts of the field. Usually two
independent and persistent seams are to be found. Sometimes for a short
distance above and below these a number of smaller beds occur, but these
8 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
seem to be local. They are found confined to a space of from 100 to 200
feet above or below the main beds. The lower persistent bed is found near
the base of the middle group of the strata. South of James River it is
‘from 4 to 5 feet thick, and is worth but little for fuel in comparison with the
bed next above it. Hence its horizon is rarely reached. This is to be
regretted, as its roof-shales have many fine plants. North of James River
this lower bed becomes more important, apparently being there 6 to 8
feet thick. The interval between this and the next persistent seam above
is pretty constant, being from 40 to 50 feet. This second persistent seam
from the bottom is the main or big seam. This is always a double bed,
usually separated by a sandstone and shale parting. Near the James, and
north of it, the two members of this bed are of about equal thickness, and
on the north of the river this thickness diminishes. Thus at the Dover
Mines each member is about 6 feet thick. The interval between them here
reaches its maximum in some places and shows the greatest amount of
fluctuation in thickness. It is said to vary in no great distance from noth-
ing to 40 feet. Perhaps this is due in part to the great disturbance that
this part of the field has undergone. At Carbon Hill the interval is 17 feet
and under, the lower member being 44 and the upper 6 feet thick. In the
southern part of the field the two members of this bed attain their max-
imum thickness, and this they seem to do at the expense of the overlying
local beds. At Carbon Hill there is at least one bed 6 feet thick, 50 feet
above the upper member of the main seam. This does not appear to exist
at Midlothian. At this place Mr. O. Heinrich gives a full account of the
coal beds. According to him the lower bed is 566 feet above the gneiss,
and is composed of 34 feet of coal and 14 feet of shale. Omitting a small
seam 12 inches thick, the next above is the main seam in two benches, the
lowest 44 feet above the first coal bed. Between the two benches is a
thickness of 10 feet of sandstone and shale. The lower bench is 12 feet
thick, the upper one 144 feet. Over this come 863 feet, as far as tested, of
sandstones and shales, with no coal worth mentioning.
At Clover Hill, in the southeastern end of the field, the conditions are
pretty much the same, except that some small coal seams occur above the
GEOLOGY OF THE MESOZOIC AREAS. 9
main bed. The section of the coal beds at Clover Hill is as follows, begin-
ning with the highest coal seam:
Thickness.
15. Coal seam, local (?), 18 inches to.....--..--..----- 4 feet.
14. Interval, sandstone and shale ..-----.--.---+--.+--- 14 feet.
13, Coal seam, local....-....-....----- .----------- == 12 inches.
12. Interval, sandstone and shale.......--.------------ 12 feet.
11. @oal seam, locall...----. 522-2 1. -2-- 022 - 2-22-12 14 inches.
10. Interval, sandstone and shale...-......------------ 25 feet.
9. Coal seam, local......---------.---+-+-----+-+---+-- 18 inches.
8. Interval, sandstone and shale.....--.---.--.-------- 40 feet.
7. Upper bench of main coal ...---------------------- 5 feet.
6. Interval, shale, varying in thickness ..-...-... --.- 5 feet +.
5. Main coal, lower bench..--...-..-------------+----- 15 to 26 feet.
4, Interval, sandstone and shale.-..----.--.---------- 40 feet.
3. Lower persistent coal bed ..-.---.-------+-----+++-- 4 feet 9 inches.
2. Interval, sandstones and shales, about .......----- 2 250 feet.
1. Gneissic floor.
The coal seam No. 15 may be a persistent bed. In that part of the
field that lies north of James River there is a coal seam at nearly the same
height above the main or big bed, and it is the bed that at Carbon Hill is
partially coked by an overlying sheet of trap. This bed may exist at other
localities and be overlooked, owing to its insignificance as a source of fuel.
Its great variation in thickness at Clover Hill is due to the large amount of
crushing that it has been subjected to. The thicker portions are caused by
the concentration of the coal in them, it having been squeezed out of the
thinner parts. This same action has, no doubt, caused the variation in the
thickness of the lower bench in the main seam, viz., 15 to 26 feet. This coal
bed No. 15 has a shale roof that is rich in plants,-some of which are not
found at any other horizon.
With the possible exception of this bed, the small seams occurring above
the main seam at Clover Hill appear to be local.
Above No. 15 of this section there is at Clover Hill a considerable
thickness of barren strata; perhaps 500 feet in all. Among these we find
sandstones composed of granitic matter only partly sorted.
This brief account of the several Mesozoic areas may perhaps suffice to
render intelligible the occurrence of the different species of plants.
PART iT.
THE FOSSIL FLORA.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIES.
EQUISETE.
EQUISETUM, L.
Equisetum Rogersi, Schimper.
Plate I, Fig. 2; Plate II, Figs. 1 and 2.
Stem 6 to 9 centimeters thick, furrowed below the sheath for about 14 centime-
ters, the rest of the internode smooth. Lower internodes shorter than the upper, with
the length gradually increasing in ascending. Sheaths closely appressed, and 12 to 15
millimeters long. Teeth, 70 to 80 in number, about 8 millimeters long, ribbed, linear,
and narrow to near the base, where they rapidly expand into the summit of the united
leaves or ribs. Ribs, or united portions of sheath leaves, linear and separated from
one another by a sharply-distinct keeled furrow, concave on the back, the concavity
being embraced within two sharply-defined raised lines, which at the base of the rib
lie at its outer margins, but gradually approach each other towards the summit of the
same. At the summit of the rib they pass into the teeth and soon become approxi-
mately parallel, being almost in contact, forming the rib of the tooth.
The above-mentioned raised lines on the back of the ribs are the most
characteristic feature in the sheath of this Equisetum. They begin, as
stated, at the base of the rib, on its outer margins, and here the close prox-
imity of the similarly-placed line on the adjoining rib determines a depression
between the two ribs, whose cross-section is an acute angle, with its apex
downwards. In ascending towards the summit of the rib the two lines
approach each other, and depart more and more from the margin, so that
the concavity of the back of the ribs, which is caused by the inward slope
from these raised lines, and which is very slight near the base of the ribs,
where they are far apart, becomes quite pronounced at the summit, where
10
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 11
they approach each other closely. There is an outward slope also on the
back of the ribs, away from these lines. At the summit of the ribs the
angular depression measured from line to line is much broader than at their
base. The grooves seen on the stem below the sheaths are caused by the
gradual approach to each other of the raised lines, and when they meet the
grooves terminate. The imprints of these grooves, seen in relief, appear as
gradually tapering, sharply-defined, keeled ridges. Plate II, Fig. 1a, which
represents a portion of the sheath magnified, shows these features. It will
thus be seen that these lines determine the entire character of the ribs and
teeth. They can very rarely be seen showing all the details that I have
given here. I was fortunate enough to obtain at Clover Hill, in a fine-
grained dark shale, specimens of the surface of the stem, and of its impres-
sions on the shale, showing the smallest details with the nicety of a litho-
graphic imprint. Plate II, Fig. 2, represents a portion of the stem in which
the internodes are short, and on which the diaphragms do not appear. Plate
II, Fig. 1, represents the largest specimen that I have seen on which the
sheaths are displayed. On it the diaphragms show themselves. I have
given 80 as the greatest number of teeth, as this is the largest number
indicated on any impression seen by me. As the specimens represent stems
which are pressed perfectly flat, I conclude that the number of ribs and
teeth are at least twice as many as those seen on the surface exposed to
view. Judging from the diameter of the casts of the interior of the stems,
which sometimes occur perfectly cylindrical in shape, the thickness of the
largest stems is about 8 to 9 centimeters. An average stem has a diameter
of about 6 centimeters. Ona stem of about this diameter, found at the
Aspinwall Shaft near Manakin, four internodes exist, which give the follow-
ing measurements: Lowest internode, 45 millimeters; second internode, 51
millimeters; third internode, 57 millimeters; fourth internode, 59 millime-
ters. This portion of the stem was evidently some distance from the base.
It will be seen that the increase in length is quite gradual. The lower
internodes are often so short that the furrows below the sheaths overlap the
sheath of the internode below.
Plate I, Fig. 2, represents what is probably the rhizome of an Equise-
tum, and probably of E. Rogersi. The specimen is a fragment of a flat-
12 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
tened stem, showing the epidermis which is finely striated and marked by
rather large, prominent ribs which cross the diaphragms with no change of
direction. No indications of a sheath are to be seen. As it is found with
E. Rogersi, I consider it to be the rhizome of this plant.
This plant is one of the most characteristic fossils of the Richmond
Coal Field, and has a wide vertical and horizontal range. I have found it in
the Cumberland Area, and everywhere in the Richmond Area where plants
occur. It is to be found in the highest strata of the Hanover Area which
show fossil plants. It is noteworthy that it is almost everywhere found
with Macroteniopteris magnifolia. The association of the two is so constant
that these plants would appear to have grown in close proximity to each
other, for I do not think that this association could be explained by any
similar peculiarity in their mode of preservation. ‘Together with the Macro-
teeniopteris it often forms the only fossil of some localities. It is more
commonly preserved in the form of a cast of the interior, known as Cala-
mites, and described by several writers as C. arenaceus. I have seen no true
Calamites in this coal-field; all the impressions appearing as such are casts
of this Equisetum or of some Schizoneura. I was at one time strongly in-
clined to consider this plant identical with Hquisetwm columnare, which it
resembles very closely. Prof. William B. Rogers, after a comparison of it
with the figures given in Murchison’s Memoir on the Brora Coal Field, was
very positive in identifying it with the plant there described as EL. columnare.
I have examined the figures accompanying this memoir, and do not
think that they show enough characters to permit identification with our
plant. The keeled ridges in the figures of Murchison’s Memoir certainly
strongly resemble those on H. Rogerst. I am now of the opinion that the
Richmond plant is a distinct species, perhaps the representative of . col-
umnare. It should retain the name given it by Schimper, viz., Hquisetwm
Rogersi. It does not seem to be identical with any of the figures of E. col-
umnare which I have seen. Phillips, in the ‘‘ Geology of Yorkshire,” 3d
edition, fig. 4, p. 197, gives a figure of E. columnare, which resembles what
would be seen in our plant if the teeth were removed by maceration, and
only the ribs with their converging raised lines were preserved. Our plant
is quite different from ZL. arenaceum of the Keuper in the smaller size of the
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 18)
stems, the smaller dimensions of the sheath, and the lesser number of the
teeth and ribs. The ribs also are not flat, do not narrow in the same way
to form the teeth, and above all do not have any deciduous process at the
end of the teeth. Bronn, in “ Lethaea Geognostica,” plate xii, fig 3, gives
a representation of a plant from the “Lettenkohle” of the Keuper, which
is very much like our plant. He calls this Equisetites columnaris, but
Schimper argues, I think correctly, against the occurrence of LH. columnare
in the Keuper. At the same time this plant of Bronn seems to be quite
different from EZ. arenaceum, as figured by all the authors, and especially by
Heer, who has given excellent figures of this plant as found in the Keuper
of Switzerland.
Perhaps Bronn’s Equisetum may be the EZ. mytharwm of Heer, which
occurs in the Lettenkohle of Switzerland. At any rate this is the Triassic
Equisetum that is nearest to our plant.
Schimper, in describing the plants from the Richmond Coal Field, has
made the mistake of placing plants from the same strata in very different
geological formations. Thus he places EH. Rogersi in the lower “‘Marnes
irisées” of Blackheath, near Richmond, Va., while he places its constant
companion, Macroteniopteris magnifolia, in the Oolitic strata of Richmond
in Virginia. He places Newropteris linneeefolia, also in the Oolitic beds of -
Richmond, although this plant, too, occurs in the same localities with LZ.
Rogersi.
Formation and locality—Everywhere in the Richmond Area, from the
horizon of the coal beds to the highest beds of the area.
Equisetum arundiniforme, Rogers.
I have seen impressions of this plant as described by Prof. William B.
Rogers in his paper on the ‘“‘Age of the Coal Rocks of Eastern Virginia,”
published in the ‘“‘ Transactions of the Association of American Geologists
and Naturalists.” Iam strongly inclined to think that they are casts of the
young stems of HZ. Rogersi. There may be a second Equisetum in the
Richmond Coal Field, as the internal casts called Calamites sometimes vary
a good deal, but until an impression of the outer surface of a plant different
from E. Rogersi is found, and while we do not know the limits of variation
14 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
in the appearance of the casts of the interior of this plant, it would be
unsafe to establish new species on the variations of such casts so far as
as they have been seen. -
Calamites arenaceus, Brongt.
These casts of the interior of E. Rogerst occur in immense num-
bers in the shales and sandstones between and immediately over the coal
beds, and even in the coal itself. In the shales they are pressed perfectly
flat. In the sandstones they are usually crushed more or less, but are not
so flat as in the shales. Sometimes in the sandstones they retain their
cylindrical shape perfectly. Sometimes in the roof of the main coal seam
sandstone casts of Equisetum occur, which rise perpendicular to the top of
the seam to a greater or less height. When the impressions are best pre-
served, as they are in the fine-grained dark shales, they appear as flat rib-
bon-shaped markings, often 10 to 12 centimeters wide, tapering gradually
and marked at intervals by constrictions corresponding to the imprints of
the diaphragms. Their surface is marked by fine, closely-placed parallel
strize, or ribs, which in passing across the constrictions are slightly bent out
of their course.
Formation and locality —Universally distributed at and above the hori-
zon of the coal seams.
SCHIZONEURA, Schimp.
Schizoneura planicostata.
Plate I, Fig. 1.
Calamites planicostatus, Rogers.
The fossils which are supposed to belong here have the form of either
flattened or cylindrical casts of the interior of the stem. Their character
is as follows: Stem very large, diameter near the base, 17 centimeters and
over, internodes of the middle portions of the stem, 17 centimeters long, as
seen on flattened specimens; those of the lower part of the stem were seen
only on cylindrical sandstone casts not well marked, but apparently are 7
to 9 centimeters long. Ribs 1 millimeter wide, and sometimes a little over,
semi-cylindrical, prominent, closely placed, and striate.
The figure gives a representation of a large flattened cast, which is
very perfectly preserved on a fine-grained shale.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 15
The casts called Calamites arenaceus are marked by closely placed fine
lines. Brongniart has given a good figure of one of them, which was sent
to him from the Richmond Coal Field. It appears in the “Hist. des Vég.
foss.,” plate xvi, fig. 1, with the name Calamites Suckowii, var. 6. The plant
now in question seems to have been far larger than Equisetum Rogersi.
I have found in the collections of the University of Virginia several
specimens of this plant from an horizon not indicated. One of them is
the sandstone cast of the interior of this plant, over 12 centimeters thick.
Another cast is 174 centimeters thick. The specimen figured is a small
portion of a flattened cast in fine-grained shale, which is 15 centimeters
wide, and shows an internode 17 centimeters long. The rounded ribs, the
articulations of the leaves indicated by Professor Rogers, and the great
size of the stem appear to indicate that this plant is a Schizoneura, but
until the impression of the exterior of the stem is seen its true character
cannot be positively determined.
Bunbury, in the third volume of the “Quarterly Journal of the
Geological Society,” under the head of Calamites arenaceus, says that some
of the impressions called by that name are as much as 20 centimeters in
diameter. He does not say whether this measurement is the width of a
flattened stem, or the thickness of a cylindrical one. It is to be presumed
that the latter is meant. These dimensions belong, not to Egquisetum
Rogersi, but to the supposed Schizoneura now in question, and it is prob-
able that Bunbury had casts of this plant, on which the characteristic
markings were not well shown. This occurs usually in the case of sand-
stone casts.
The cast depicted in fig. 1, on the parts where the coaly matter of the
imprint is preserved, shows the characters above given quite distinctly.
The original exterior of the casts, however, is very rarely preserved, for
the prominent semi-cylindrical ribs are easily rubbed off, and leave in their
place impressions looking like flat ribs. This feature is shown at a in the
lower part of fig. 1. The ribs run across the nodes, usually suffering a
slight deflection in their course, but sometimes they are interrupted, and
abut against the interval between the ribs above. This, however, is rare.
The space between two adjacent ribs appears to be rather rounded than
16 THE OLDER MESOZOIO FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
angular at its bottom, and is shallow. This appears to be the plant named
Calamites planicostatus by Professor Rogers. He seems to have noted it
only in its condition after the removal of the raised ribs, for these almost
never appear, while the flat markings are the most common and obvious
features. Professor Rogers mentions seeing in the nodes small circular
scars like the insertion of leaves, arranged at intervals of about half an
inch. This fossil seems to be the cast of the interior of a plant very differ-
ent from the Equisetum Rogersi, for the impressions called Calamites arena-
ceus, which are casts of the interior of this fossil, do not show any of the
above characteristic features. If it is the cast of the interior of an Equi-
setum, it is certainly different from E. Rogersi.
Formation and locality—It occurs not uncommonly in the strata under
the main coal and above the bottom seam at Clover Hill, along with the
casts of H. Rogersi, and also at Carbon Hill and other localities. From the
material composing the large sandstone casts above mentioned, whose
horizon and locality are not known, it would seem that it occurs also above
the horizon of the coal beds. Poorly preserved specimens may readily be
mistaken for #. Rogerst when in the form of casts.
Schizcneura. spec. ?
Plate I, Fig. 3.
This figure represents the flattened cast of the interior of some stem
of which only a portion is preserved. As only one fragment was found, I
can say nothing as to the size of the stem, of which the specimen is evi-
dently only a small portion. The impression shows parallel, sharply
defined, raised lines, which are semi-cylindrical, and narrow very slowly
from a width of about half a millimeter in their most remote parts as they
approach the nodes, where they are abruptly terminated in a blunt point,
abutting against the interval between the adjacent pair of raised lines or
ribs on the opposite side of the node. The impression seems to be that of
the stem of a Schizoneura. The plant must have been very rare, as I
found only one specimen.
Formation and locality.—Clover Hill, found in the strata accompanying
the main seam.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 170
Schizoneura Virginiensis, spec. nov.
Plate I, Figs. 4 to 6.
Stem 5 millimeters thick, smooth and finely striate; internodes 15 to 20 millime-
ters long; leaves, number not plainly indicated, probably as many as 24 and more,
narrowly linear, 1 to 24 millimeters wide, narrower at base, and slowly widening towards
the middle, with fine nerves apparently 3 to 4 in number.
The leaves of this small plant are marked by delicate striations which
look like slender nerves. The stem also appears striated by fine lines. The
leaves of the lower nodes, as shown in Fig. 4, are depressed by crushing.
Their natural position seems to be obliquely ascending, but in the very im-
perfect condition of the specimens this cannot be certainly established.
Only two specimens of the plant have been found, and these are too im-
perfect to permit a full diagnosis or sure identification of the fossil to be
made out. The leaves were evidently much longer than the parts which
remain, and they seem to widen very slowly, being narrowed at base and
summit. This plant has some resemblance to the Nematophyllum of the
Upper Carboniferous of West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania. In
the description of Nematophyllum attention was drawn to its resemblance
to Schizoneura Meriani, but the fact was overlooked that Schimper states
that leaves of this plant had been seen united, showing that it is a true
Schizoneura.
It is difficult to fix the relationship of this Schizoneura from so small
an amount of material. It is clearly very similar both to 8. Meriani of the
Trias and to S. hoerensis of the Rhetic of Europe. Nathorst gives in his
“‘Floran vid Hégoniis” figures of Schizoneura hoerensis on plate i, figs. 1 to 4.
Fig. 4 might be compared with our plant.
I do not, however, think that the specimens found indicate definitely
the relationship of the plant in question, and in that case it is best to con-
sider it, provisionally, as a new species. It might also be compared with
Schizoneura lateralis, Schimp., (Equisetum laterale, Lind. and Hut.) of the
Odlite of England. Schimper describes this as an Equisetum. Again, the
branches and leaves which show the characters above mentioned may be
parts of the plant which furnishes the large casts of the supposed Schi-
zoneura previously described.
2F
18 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Formation and locality—Found only at Clover Hill, in the strata. asso-
ciated with the main coal.
FILICES.
MacroT£NI0PTERIS, Schimper.
Macroteniopteris magnifolia, (Rogers) Schimper.
Plate II, Fig. 3; Plate III, Figs. 1 to 3; Plate IV, Figs. 1 to 4; Plate V, Figs. 1 to 4.
Fronds simple, and those of the larger plants attaining the length of at least 1
meter and the width of 17 centimeters. Young fronds, according to stage of growth,
varying in length from 5 to 40 centimeters and in width from 24 to 5 centimeters and
over. Qutline of the adult fronds of two principal kinds, viz., oblong-spatulate and
oblong-lanceolate; the first is bluntly rounded and broad at the end, and the second
gradually narrowing with an elliptic extremity. Margins of the fronds thickened and
having towards the summit a very regular sweep, but towards the base gradually
approaching the midrib with a more or less undulate or irregular outline, and at the
base closing in rather abruptly upon the midrib, the lamina on one side being usually
more prolonged than on the other. Young plants in the early stages of growth are
broadly elliptical in outline. The epidermis of the frond is usually thin except near
the midrib, where it is so thick as to hide the insertion of the lateral nerves, and thus
add to the apparent width of the midrib. Midrib of adult plants broad and flat, with
comparatively few woody bundles, which appear as strong striz on the surface of the
midrib, tapering gradually to the summit; that of the younger plants, broad to about
the middle of the frond, and then suddenly and greatly narrowed. Lateral nerves
springing from the midrib under an acute angle, but immediately after their emer-
gence becoming perpendicular to it, and thence continuing parallel to one an other and
perpendicular to the margin of the frond, about one-half millimeter distant from each
other, either not forking or forking close to the midrib, the branches very slowly
diverging and soon becoming parallel to each other and to the adjoining nerves. In
rare cases the nerves which are not forked in their lower portion branch at some dis-
tance from the midrib. The lateral nerves are apparently single nerves, but are really
nerve-bundles, composed of two or three fine nerve-strands so consolidated as to appear,
under ordinary conditions, as a single nerve.
Fructification not clearly made out, but apparently composed of elliptical sori,
placed either in a single row on the midrib or in two rows, one on each side of the
midrib.
This magnificent plant has been well described by Professor Rogers
in his article “‘On the Age of the Coal Rocks of Eastern Virginia,” pub-
lished in the “Transactions of the Association of American Geologists and
Naturalists.” Professor Rogers gives three measurements of sizes often found
in the fronds. They may be distinguished as fronds A, B, and C. Dimen-
sions of frond A: Width, 2.4 inches; estimated length, 14 inches. Frond
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 19
B has a width of 4 inches and an estimated length of 24 inches. Frond
C has a width of 6.4 inches and an estimated length of 40 inches. ‘The
widths were measured and the lengths estimated from fragments large
enough to give a good idea of the true size of the frond. It is necessary
to estimate the lengths, as the plants are never, when of large size, com-
plete. I have, however, seen fragments so nearly representing the entire
length that I can confirm these estimates and measurements of Professor
Rogers. The enormous number and wide diffusion of the specimens of this
plant, and the different stages of growth which are preserved, afford a good
deal of variation both in the size and shape of the impressions, so that
sometimes one is tempted to suppose that he has a new species before him.
I have, however, found in all cases that the nervation remains the same. I
have obtained this plant in all stages of growth, from the very young form
to the fully-grown leaf, and in all degrees of perfection of preservation.
In many cases the shale is so fine-grained, and the plant presented in so
many aspects from the maceration which it has undergone, that I have
been enabled to make a very satisfactory study of it.
The young plants represented in Plate H, Fig. 3, and Plate III, Fig. 2,
are seen to assume a rather broadly elliptical form, thus differing greatly
from the more fully grown plants. A marked character of the young frond
is the great and sudden attenuation of the midrib, which occurs about mid-
way its length. Both Professors Rogers and Bunbury have called atten-
tion to the fact that two forms are quite common in the more fully grown
fronds. One form is elongate, and gradually narrows at the summit, giving
the frond an oblong-lanceolate outline. This I have represented in Plate
IV, Fig. 3, which is a much reduced outline of a full-grown leaf. The other
form has the summit more bluntly rounded off, and possesses an oblong
spatulate shape for the whole leaf. This is represented much reduced in
Plate IV, Fig. 4. Plate V, Figs. 1 to 3, represent one of the obtuse fronds of
natural size, as made out from a nearly complete specimen. Plate III, Figs.
1, 1a, represent one of the smaller acute fronds of natural size, and Plate III,
Fig. 3, gives the summit of a larger frond of the same shape, also of natural
size. Plate IV, Fig. 2, represents a rather unusual shape of the plant, where
the length is great in proportion to the width, and in which the undulations
20 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
do not appear on the margins of the leaf. While the upper part and
termination of the leaves usually show a very regular curve in their mar-
gins, we find towards the middle and lower portions a more or less distinct
undulation, which often becomes very marked towards the base. The fronds
all narrow gradually towards the base and the lamina rather suddenly
ceases, one-half being usually more prolonged than the other. The midrib
is prolonged for some distance into a rachis that supported the frond, which
latter is of course single. The frond seems to have been thin when we con-
sider its great size, but the epidermis was strong and durable. It may often
be stripped off from the fine-grained shale like thin paper. This epidermal
tissue has, in the Hanover Area, formed a local deposit of coal 4 or 5 inches
thick. It seems that here immense numbers of the leaves of this plant were
accumulated in an eddy of the water, and being heaped one over the other,
give us a coal composed of epidermal tissue mainly. The epidermis
becomes greatly thickened near and over the midrib, so that the insertions
of the lateral nerves are mostly hidden, and the midrib appears to be much
wider than it really is. When this portion of the epidermis is removed by
maceration, as it often is, the true nature of the lateral nerves, their inser-
tion, and the true width of the midrib are disclosed. All of these points
cannot be made out when the epidermis covers the fossil. Professor Rogers
seems to have made his study of the plant from specimens which retain the
epidermis, and hence he failed to note some of the characters of the fossil.
The midrib was evidently fleshy in nature, and had but comparatively
few woody bundles. It owed much of its strength and rigidity to the strong,
thick epidermis that covered this portion of the plant. It is as flat asa
ribbon, and in those plants which are freed from the epidermis it is seen to
be composed of but few nerve-bundles, which appear to have been immersed
in a rather soft and succulent material, which, readily yielding to pressure,
became perfectly flat on the thinly-laminated and fine-grained shale. When
the thick epidermis over and near the midrib is in place it conceals the
insertion of the lateral nerves. These, then, often appear to issue as single
nerves, when, if the epidermis be stripped off, they are seen to fork very
commonly close to their insertion. The striations seen on the midrib are
the nerve-bundles showing through the epidermis. Seen on well-preserved
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. yi
specimens, with the epidermis in place, the lateral nerves appear simple, but
when the plant has been subjected to maceration and pressure it is per-
ceived that they are really nerve-bundles, composed of two and sometimes
three fine thread-like nerves, which are usually so closely connected as to
appear to be a single nerve. I had often been struck, when viewing the
nerves on well-preserved impressions of the plant in which the epidermis
was retained, with the fact that they seem very vaguely defined, consid-
ering their apparent strength.- Closer examination of other specimens
showed that this vagueness in the outline of the nerve is due to the tendency
of the component filaments to separate from one another and to spread out
under the influence of pressure and maceration. Plate V, Fig. 4, much
enlarged, shows this compound nature of the nerves, and also the insertion
of the lateral nerves, as well the way in which it is hidden by the thick
epidermis near the midrib. Plate V, Fig. 4a, still more enlarged, shows
three filaments in the nerve-bundles. The fructification shown on Plate
IV, Fig. 1, if it be fructification, appears in the specimen seen by me in the
form of elliptical depressions placed on the midrib from the middle of
the leaf towards the base. They are drawn of natural size in Fig. 1 and
enlarged in Fig. 1a. They are surrounded by a raised line which, sweep-
ing sharply around the ends of the depressions, continues double until a
divergence again takes place to embrace the next depression. Professor
Rogers says that on many specimens he found an irregular row of circular
depressions on each side of the midrib, and not unfrequently on the mid-
rib itself. He states that they are placed at unequal intervals apart, and
at rather varying distances from the midrib. He considered the depressions
as indicating the positions of the sori, and I agree with him. I have not,
however, seen these depressions otherwise than in the form shown in Fig. 1.
They are rare, for I have seen but one distinctly-marked specimen. On
Plate IV, Fig. 1, in the three groups of nerves, a, b, c, I have depicted the
three principal modes in which the nerves depart from the midrib. They
are, however, not grouped in this way, but the different kinds alternate
with one another, and with single nerves. Macroteniopteris magnifolia seems
to be most.nearly allied to Macroteniopteris gigantea of the Rhetice of
Europe, and to Macroteniopteris lata of India. Schenk’s plant, as figured on
22 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
plate xxviii, fig. 12, in his work on the Rheetic Flora, represents the lateral
nerves much as they are in our plant, but the chief difference seems to lie in
their greater slenderness and remoteness, being in M. gigantea, one millimeter
apart, while in the Virginia plant they are not more than one-half millimeter
apart. Schenk’s figure does not show the entire midrib, but Nathorst gives
a figure of this plant in his ‘“ Floran vid Bjuf,” plate ix, fig. 1, in which
the flat, broad midrib is well shown and where we see a non-striated border
on each side, which evidently is the insertion of the lateral nerves concealed
by the thick epidermis investing the midrib. The nerves of the Swedish
plant also agree closely with those of the Virginia fern, except that they
appear to maintain a course more oblique to the midrib. As this feature is
not shown in Schenk’s plant, where they are soon perpendicular to the
midrib, it is probably due to oblique compression. Macroteniopteris lata,
Teniopteris lata, of Oldham and Morris, as depicted in fig. 1, plate II, of
the “ Paleeontologia Indica,” series ii, 1, is strikingly like our plant. The
chief difference seems to be that the Indian plant has a more prominent, a
more woody, and narrower midrib than the Virginia fern. I am strongly
inclined to think that these three plants are all representatives of the same
type-form, differing only in such minor features as would be produced in
regions so remote from one another as Virginia, Northern Europe, and
India.
Formation and locality—This is the most widely diffused, abundant, and
characteristic plant in the Mesozoic strata of Virginia. It abounds in the
strata connected with the main coal seam, and is found everywhere in the
Mesozoic at this horizon and above it to the top of the series. It is often
found alone, but very commonly occurs with Hquisetum Rogersi, and the two
often occur alone. It must have grown in the same localities with the Equi-
setum or very near to it.
Macroteniopteris crassinervis, Feist.
Plate V, Fig. 5; Plate VI, Figs. 1,2.
Frond simple, coriaceous, margins thickened, length ? width up to 17 centime-
ters. Midrib prominent, rounded, and rigid. Lateral nerves strong and cord-like,
slightly thickened towards the insertion, one millimeter, and sometimes a little over,
apart, single, making a right angle, or one a little less than a right angle, with the
middle nerve, or midrib, parallel.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 23
Plate VI, Fig. 1, represents, apparently, a portion towards the summit
of a frond. Plate V, Fig. 5, gives a fragment of a larger frond, on which
the margins are wanting. The character of the lateral nerves on this spec-
imen on the right-hand side, seems to be the normal one, that is, they are
slightly oblique. On Plate VI, Figs. 1, 2, they are at right angles to the
middle nerve and margin. In Plate VI, Fig. 2, we have enough of the
frond preserved to give us the width of one of the plants of large size.
The width of this specimen was at least 17 centimeters, and the frond must
have in all its dimensions rivaled the largest of the specimens of M. magni-
folia. It will be noted that the margin of the specimens given in Plate VI,
Figs. 1, 2, is represented as having a thickened and rigid border. This is
true of M. magnifolia also, but the thickened margin is in that plant less
obvious than in WM. crassinervis. This character of the margin enables us
easily to determine when the lamina is entire, and when apparent undula-
tions are due simply to laceration.
I have identified this plant, without hesitation, with Feistmantel’s plant
found at Murero and Buskoghat, in the Rajmahal Group of India.
Feistmantel says, however, that his plant is not large. The representation
given of it in ‘Pal. Ind.,” series ii, 7, on plate xxviii, in figs. 1, 2, 3,
2a, 2b, clearly shows that the specimens were fragmentary, and did not
give the entire width of the frond. The undulation of the margin noted
by Feistmantel is evidently due to the laceration of the margin. These
figures show plainly that the India plant is the same with that from
Virginia.
This species is one of the most clearly defined of all the forms of Ma-
croteniopteris. Its strongly prominent and rigid midrib is not much flat-
tened, and is sharply distinct from the lamina of the frond on each side.
The lateral nerves are very distinct, and stand out like threads, even on
sandstone, the only rock which contains it. The plant is very rare. I have
never seen any specimens anywhere except at Clover Hill, and here it occurs
only with a few fragments in a rather siliceous sandstone under the main
seam. It is associated in this sandstone with plants found as yet only here.
Formation and locality—Clover Hill, in sandstone under the main coal,
and between it and the bottom seam.
24 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
ACROSTICHIDES (ACROSTICHITES Goeppert).
Frond bipinnate or tripinnate. Pinne linear-lanceolate, usually much prolonged.
Pinnules various, ovate-oblong, ovate, ovate-subfalcate, rounded, and subrhombic.
Middle nerve of the pinnules vanishing towards the apex, being dissolved into branches.
Lateral nerves depart from the middle nerve under an acute angle, the lower ones
forking more frequently than the upper ones. Fructification in the form of rounded
sporangia, covering the whole of the under surface of the pinnules and placed between
the nerves.
I have defined this genus nearly as Goeppert does. It is difficult to
limit the character of the pinnules since they vary a good deal in the
sterile forms, and the fertile pinnules often differ from the sterile ones.
We may, however, distinguish two types in the shape of the sterile pin-
nules. One is ovate, or ovate-subfalcate, as shown in A. Geppertianus and
A. linneefolius. The other is broadly ovate, approaching a quadrilateral
and rhombic form, as shown in A. pachyrachis and A. rhombifolius. 'This
latter type is especially characteristic of the Virginia Mesozoic, as we find
several species showing it.
This genus is very characteristic of the Rheetic formation, all the forms
included in it being found in -the Rhetic except A. Williamsoni, which
occurs in the Odlite of England. The following previously described
species are to be included in this genus: Neuropteris linnecefolia, Bunbury,
from the Richmond Coal Field; Acrostichites Geppertianus and A. princeps,
Schenk, from the Rhetic of Europe; Cyclopteris pachyrachis, Goeppert, from
the Rhetic of Bamberg, and Pecopteris Williamsoni, Brongt., from the Odlite
of England. Schimper says in his “ Pal. Vég.,” vol. iii, p. 476, that the
Cyclopteris pachyrachis of Goeppert, which in his first volume he had con-
sidered as a Neuropteris, ought to be placed in his section of Pecopteris
acrostichides, which he had limited pretty much as Goeppert had defined his
genus Acrostichites. He states, in addition, that the species Acrostichites
Geppertianus and A. princeps, as well as Pecopteris Williamsoni, along with
Cyclopteris pachyrachis, might well form a group distinct from others. In
his description of Neuropteris linnecfolia, in which he follows Bunbury, he
says that this plant is probably the type of a new genus, and although he
had only the fructified form of the fossil as figured by Bunbury, he placed
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 25
it alongside of Cyclopteris pachyrachis. eer also has stated that Neurop-
teris linneeefolia resembles Cyclopteris pachyrachis. ;
It will thus be seen that the Virginia plant, even in its greatly dis-
guised fructified form, betrays its affinity with the other plants of the genus
Acrostichides, some of which, as Cyclopteris pachyrachis, have not been found
fructified.
Acrostichides linnzzfolius (Bunb. species).
Plate VI, Fig. 3; Plate VII, Figs. 1-4; Plate VIII, Fig. 1; Plate IX, Fig. 1.
Neuropteris linneefolia, Bunbury.
Frond bi- or tripinnate. Rachis channeled on the upper side. Pinnz linear-
elongate, subopposite or alternate. Pinnules of sterile and fertile fronds different.
Sterile pinnules ovate-subfaleate, acutely or obtusely terminated, distinct to the base,
where they are slightly rounded, attached by the entire base. Pinnules of the fertile
frond rounded or semicircular, slightly heart-shaped at base, and separate to the
insertion. Pinnules of both fertile and sterile fronds subopposite or alternate. Mid-
nerve of sterile pinnules stout at base but vanishing towards the apex, being dissolved
into branches; lateral nerves of the same departing obliquely from the middle nerve,
the lower ones several times forked, the upper ones less frequently forked. On each
side of the insertion of the middle nerve a group of fascicled nerves is found. All the
lateral nerves curve strongly towards the margin. Middle nerve of the fertile pin-
nules stout at the insertion, and, by repeated branching in a flabellate manner, filling
the greater part of the pinnule. A group of lateral nerves departs from the rachis of
the pinna on each side of the insertion of the middle nerve, and the branches curve
strongly to meet the margin of the pinnules. Fructification in the form of rounded
sporangia placed between the branches of the nerves, and covering the under side of
the pinnules, giving them a granulated appearance.
Specimens of this beautiful fern in the fructified form were obtained
by Sir Charles Lyell, and were described by Bunbury in the ‘Quarterly
Journal of the Geological Society,” vol. iii, where he gives in plate x a
good figure of the plant, naming it Neuropteris linnecefolia. 'This specimen
shows well the leading characteristics of the plant, but seems to have suf-
fered a good deal from maceration, which has disguised the insertion of most
of the pinnules, rendering them too much narrowed at base. I was fortu-
nate enough to find, in my visit to Midlothian, on the mantel of an old
gentleman who had, thirty years before been a miner of coal in this vicinity,
a large slab of very fine-grained shale, of light gray color, on which were
large impressions of several species of plants, beautifully preserved, with
all the carbonaceous material of the plants in place. This slab had been
26 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
taken from the roof-shales of the main coal, in a shaft long since-filled up,
at a locality near Midlothian. It was preserved solely on account of the
beauty of the impressions found on it. Among the plants found on this
slab was the large fragment of Acrostichides linneefolius depicted in Plate
IX, Fig. 1. To judge from the number and size of the different specimens
found on this slab, and the perfection of their preservation, this locality
must have been remarkably rich in fine impressions. The shaft from which
they were obtained is the “‘Gowry.”
All the leaf substance being preserved on this specimen from the Gowry
in great perfection, we are enabled to make out many details which could
not otherwise be observed. The portion of the frond figured was most
probably a primary pinna of an arborescent fern. The pinnz are extremely
long and slender, and are sometimes opposite. The rachis is marked
with two lateral ridges, one on each side, bordering a depressed channel.
This is also seen on Bunbury’s specimen. The plant must have been a
very robust one, and probably was arborescent, for the specimen delin-
eated in Plate IX, Fig. 1, seems to be a primary pinna. The leaf sub-
stance of the fertile pinne was thick and coriaceous, leaving, after being
compressed in the shale, a shining, granulated, and somewhat convex im-
pression. The pinnules are often crowded, and sometimes somewhat imbri-
cated. The nerves are in both the sterile and fertile pinnules slender but
strongly marked, and distinctly defined. In Plate IX, Fig. 1a, I have
given on the magnified pinnules both the nervation and fructification of the
fertile portion of the plant. What the relation in position of the sterile
and fertile portions of the fronds to each other is I cannot say. I have
never seen any sterile pinnules on the fertile portion of the frond, or vice
versa. The pinnze were extremely long, and as a consequence their tips
are almost without exception wanting. In Plate VII, Fig. 3, I give a rep-
resentation of the only termination that I have seen. In Plate VII, Fig. 4,
I give a delineation of fertile pinnules that show a transition in shape ap-
proaching that of the sterile pinnules.
I visited the old Gowry Shaft, now filled up, and found, after careful
search on the “dump,” several impressions that I consider as the sterile
form of this plant. At first sight they do not appear to be the same species,
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 27
but a careful inspection of the shape of the pinnules, and the plan of the
nervation, would soon convince one that these forms are essentially the
same with the fructified plant called, by Bunbury, Neuropteris linneeeefolia.
I have never found the sterile or fertile forms anywhere but at this shaft.
Bunbury obtained his plant from the Blackheath Mine, which is in the same
vicinity. I give in Plate VI, Fig. 3, and Plate VIII, Fig. 1, representations
of the sterile frond. One of the forms (Plate VI, Fig. 3) has the pinnules
more bluntly terminated and a stouter principal rachis, indicating that the
specimen belongs to the lower portion of the frond. Plate VIII, Fig. 1,
represents a portion higher up on the frond, where the pinnules are more
acute, elongate, and falcate. Plate VI, Fig. 3a, represents a magnified
portion of Fig. 3, giving the nervation, while in Plate VIII, Fig. 1 a, mag-
nified pinnules of Fig. 1 are represented. In both forms the pinne are
closely placed, and overlap one another. The base of the pinnules of both
forms is slightly rounded on each side. A slight modification of both kinds
of pinnules, shortening and rounding them, would give us the form of the
pinnules of the fertile frond. Hence, even without the aid of the transi-
tion pinnules, such as are shown in Plate VII, Fig. 4, there would be no
difficulty in identifying these sterile forms as belonging to the same plant
as the form described by Bunbury. The consolidation of the pinnules in
becoming fructified, by being shortened and rounded, seems to be a not
uncommon feature in Acrostichidés. It is shown in the Acrostichites Gep-
pertianus of Schenk, and more markedly in Acrostichides rhombifolius to be
presently described. It will be noted that Schenk’s plant shows the same
channeling of the stem as appears in our plant. This feature also is seen
in A. rhombifolius in a very marked manner. It does not appear in Plate
VIII, Fig. 1, for here the lower side of the rachis is no doubt seen, and this
is rounded or convex.
These sterile forms of Acrostichides linnecfolius are no doubt the same
plant as that described by Bunbury, and also by Rogers, as Pecopteris
Whitbiensis. They have a marked resemblance to some of Brongniart’s
figures of this plant, and this is especially true of the form delineated in
Plate VIII, Fig.1. I may perhaps be permitted to remark in this connec-
tion that it seems to me that some authors have gone too far in identifying
28 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
various plants with Pecopteris Whitbiensis. 'The sterile forms of the Jurassic
Acrostichides and Cladophlebis have a good many features in common, and
in the absence of fructification all these plants, however diverse, would be
reduced to Pecopteris Whitbiensis if this custom be followed. Certainly
Professors Rogers and Bunbury would in that case be justified in announc-
ing Pecopteris Whitbiensis as found in the Richmond Coal Field. Again, it
seems to me that Lindley and Hutton’s Pecopteris Whitbiensis is a very dif-
ferent plant from that of Brongniart. Schimper, I think, went as far as
was proper when he proposed to group the Jurassic ferns with no known
fructification, having a resemblance to Pecopteris Whitbiensis, as plants of
the type of P. Whitbiensis. He very properly later agreed with Saporta in
assigning a generic value to the common features of these plants, and
grouped them under the genus Cladophlebis.
Acrostichides linnecefolius seems to be a rare plant. I have never seen
either the sterile or fertile forms anywhere but at the old Gowry Shaft.
The only other locality yielding it, so far as I know, is the Blackheath
Mine, from which Bunbury procured his specimen. The Blackheath occurs
in the same part of the coal field as the Gowry.
Formation and locality—Found at the Gowry and Blackheath in the
roof of the main coal.
Since the above was written I have been so fortunate as to find among
the specimens collected by Professor Rogers, while engaged in his survey
of Virginia, and placed in the geological collection of the University of
Virginia, a magnificent slab with an impression, finely preserved, of Acros-
tichides linneeefolius. This impression is 40 centimeters long, and shows a
fragment of what seems to be a compound pinna. The rachis does not
diminish much in diameter from the base to the summit of the specimen,
and the great length of the uppermost ultimate pinne, viz., nearly 20 cen-
timeters, together with this fact, seems to indicate that, large as the frag-
ment is, it is only a small portion of the pinna from which it was derived.
The ultimate pinne of the lower and middle portions of the specimens
must have been over 20 centimeters long, and hence the width of the speci-
men must have been over 40 centimeters. I have drawn two pinne from
the lower part of the impression and two from the upper, as the specimen
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 29
is too large to be contained in any plate. In each case, although the left-
hand pinne are taken, those on the right are equally long. Both figures
give the natural size of the parts and the mode of insertion of the ultimate
pinne. In Plate VII, Fig. 2, it will be noted that the pinnules near the
principal rachis, and for some distance from it, have the rounded form of
the normal Neuropteris linneefolia of Bunbury. Farther off from the main
rachis, and towards the summit of the ultimate pinnz, the pinnules tend to
lose their rounded form and finally to pass into normal sterile pinnules. The
rounded pinnules are granulated with the sporangia. The ultimate pinne
from lower down on the compound pinna have the pinnules fructified far-
ther out from the main rachis or farther towards the summit of the ulti-
mate pinne. The indications are that on ultimate pinne from portions of
the plant still lower than any shown on the specimen, all the pinnules will
be fructified and no sterile pinnules will be found on the same pinnz with
the fertile ones. As we ascend towards the summit of the compound pinna
the fertile pinnules become less and less numerous, until from a little below
the middle of the specimen they disappear, all the pinnules being sterile
and of the form given in Plate VII, Fig.1. In accordance with these facts,
the diagnosis of the plant should be amended to read: Fertile and sterile
pinnules sometimes on the same specimen; then the fertile pinnules stand next
to the main rachis, and become more numerous in lower parts of the com-
- pound pinna, disappearing towards the summit of the same. The portion
of the plant yielding the specimen from which the figures were taken could
not have been less than a meter in length and about half a meter in width.
I am not able to tell from what locality the specimen now in question
comes, but from the character of the rock I should think it was derived
from the Gowry Shaft.
Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov.
Plate VIII, Figs. 2,3; Plate XI, Figs. 1-3; Plate XII, Figs. 1,2; Plate XIII, Figs. 1, 2;
Plate XIV, Figs. 1, 2.
Frond bi- or tripinnate. Principal rachis on the upper side, with a raised
border on each side of a rather flat channel, on the under side, convex. Pinne very
long and slender, linear in form, and narrowing slightly both towards the base and
apex, subopposite or alternate. Pinnules of the sterile and fertile fronds are of dif-
ferent forms. Those of the sterile frond are nearly quadrilateral or rhombic in form,
30 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
slightly rounded at base, and more or less acute at their extremities, being separate
to the rachis of the pinnz, and inserted by their entire base, either subopposite or
alternate, the lowest pinnule on the lower side of the pinna being often inserted half
upon the principal rachis of the frond. Pinnules of the fertile frond rounded or
semicircular in form, thick, coriaceous, somewhat convex, and granulated by the
fructification. Pinnules of both sterile and fertile fronds more and more united
towards the extremity of the pinne and towards the upper part of the frond, while
at the same time the pinnez become shortened, until finally, towards the summit, the
pinne are reduced to pinnules. Middle nerve of the fertile pinnules, none. Nerves
composing about three groups, which spring from a point below the center of the
pinnule and branching dichotomously and flabellately, fill the pinnule. Middle nerve
of the sterile pinnules rather strong at its insertion, sending off branches from its
base and at intervals higher up, the latter quite obliquely, and finally towards its
summit being dissolved into branches. Lateral nerves lower down branching more
frequently than those towards the extremity of the pinnules, all slender, but very
sharply defined and distinct. Fructification in the form of rounded sporangia placed
between the nerves and covering the under surface of the pinnules.
The large number of well-preserved specimens that I obtained of this
fine species enables me to give a very complete account of nearly all parts
of the plant. It seems to have been an arborescent species, and the large
fragments depicted in the figures appear to be primary pinne which were
once attached in a pinnate manner to some large rachis, as in the case of A.
linneefolius, causing the plant to be probably at least tripinnate. Plate XI,
Fig. 1, Plate XII, Fig. 1, seem to represent the middle portions of the pri-
mary pinne, or it may be of the fronds. The channeled rachis is well
marked in this species. The lower portion of the plant seems to have borne
smaller pinne and pinnules, for Plate XI, Fig. 2, evidently represents a
portion of the pinna or frond lower down than the parts given in the above-
named figures. Perhaps this feature is analogous to the perceptible dimi-
nution in the size of the pinnules often seen in this plant toward the inser-
tion of the pinne of the last order, which is an unusual feature. The
pinne of the last order, or ultimate pinne, were very long and slender, so
that their tips are almost never preserved. I have succeeded in finding
only one distinctly shown. This is represented by Plate VIII, Fig.2. Here
the pinnules are seen to become more and more united, and the termina-
tions of the pinnze of the middle and lower parts of the plant perhaps thus
possess the character of the entire pinnz from the upper part of this fossil,
where all the pinnules of the pinne are. becoming united, as is shown in
DESCRIPTIJN OF SPECIES. Bal
Plate XII, Fig. 2. The lower pinnules on this specimen, Plate VIII, Fig. 2,
show in a striking manner the peculiarly elegant shape which the pinnules
of this plant often assume. I have on this account given an enlarged figure
of one of these pinnules, Plate VIII, Fig. 2a, which at the same time shows
the nervation. The narrowing of the ultimate pinne towards their base is
well shown in Plate XII, Fig. 1. I have given a series of figures represent-
ing the gradations of the ultimate pinne in passing into simple pinnules
towards the top of the frond. Plate XII, Fig. 2, represents the pinnules
nearly completely united. Plate VIII, Fig. 3, represents a part of the frond
where the pinnz are much diminished in length and width, and where a
rounded lobing only is shown, while towards the summit of the specimen
the pinne are nearly reduced to pinnules. In Plate XIII, Fig. 1, the pinne
are now reduced to simple pinnules, the lowest ones showing still an undu-
lation on the margin. These pinnules are more elongate-falcate, and stand
more nearly perpendicular to the rachis than the normal pinnules of the
middle and lower parts of the plant. In fact they are so mach unlike these
that if they were seen only in isolated specimens, they would be considered
as belonging to a different species. I did so consider them until I was forced
by the finding of passage forms, showing a complete gradation of one into
the other, to unite them in one species. Plate VIII, Fig. 3a, represents a
magnified pinna of the lower part of Fig. 3; 3b represents a magnified pinna
_of the upper part of the same.
Plate XIII, Fig. 1a, gives a magnified pinnule of Fig. 1, where the
seeming pinnules are really equivalent to the pinne of the lower parts of
the plant. Plate XIV, Figs. 1 to 2, represent portions of fertile fronds. All
the pinnules are granulated. Plate XIV, Fig. 2a, gives a magnified portion
of Fig. 2, and la, a magnified section of Fig. 1. It will be borne in mind
that in most of the figures of the plants given in this memoir all the details
are not represented in every portion of the plant when they are similar to
those given in the parts which are completed. Plate XI, Fig. 3, represents
a portion of a pinna magnified twofold, in which the fructified pinnules are
semicircular and opposite, and also united for some distance. These are
unusual features in this species. Plate XIII, Fig. 2, gives the upper part
of a fertile frond, where the pinne are tending to pass into simple pinnules,
32 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
In Plate XIV, Fig. 2, the fertile pinnules are well rounded, and the plant
is more slender than that represented in Fig. 1.
The larger sterile pinnules of Acrostichides rhombifolius, those coming
from the lower parts of the frond, may be compared with two previously
described plants. These are Cyclopteris pachyrachis, Goeppert, from the Rhetic
of Europe, and Newropteris Schenleiniana, Schimper, from the Trias. It is
asmaller plant than Cyclopteris pachyrachis in all respects, and especially
the rachises of the primary pinne are much more slender. In the general
aspect of the plant it much resembles the fine fern from the Keuper which
has been so well figured by Dr. Schoenlein, and which Schenk has described.
It is, however, a more delicate plant than this, and the pinnules are decidedly
smaller. Still this fern of Dr. Schoenlein is perhaps its nearest relative
among described plants.
Acrostichides rhombifolius is not very widely diffused. I have found
the sterile form at the Gowry Shaft, and very sparingly at Clover Hill.
Both sterile and: fertile forms occur rather abundantly at Carbon Hill in the
roof shales of the lower coal bed or the bed immediately below the main
seam. This seems to be the horizon of the plant everywhere.
Formation and locality—At Carbon Hill, at the Gowry, and at Clover
Hill, over the lower coal bed.
Acrostichides rhombifolius var. rarinervis.
Plate XIII, Fig. 3.
The plant given in Plate XIII, Fig. 3, seems to differ from the normal
species, A. rhombifolius, sufficiently to separate it as a variety. The pinnz
are alternate, and have a very stout rachis in proportion to their size, and
it is bordered on each side by a raised line. The pinnules are smaller than
in the normal species, shorter and more nearly quadrilateral in form, with
the tips less produced. They are also more closely placed, and are fre-
quently imbricated slightly. The chief difference lies in the nervation,
which is more distinctly flabellate, and the branching of the nerves is less
frequent, giving fewer nerves in the pinnule. The upper pinnules are united
for some distance from the insertion, but the shape of the pinnules and their
nervation are features quite different from what we find in the united pin-
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 33
nules of A. rhombifolius. Plate XIII, Fig. 3a, represents two pinnules of the
lower part of the plant, and Fig. 3 6, two from the upper part, both magnified
to show the nervation. The fertile plant was not found.
Formation and locality—Found at Clover Hill only, in strata between
the main and lower coal seams.
Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov.
Plate VII, Fig. 5; Plate X, Fig. 2; Plate XI, Fig. 4; Plate XII, Fig. 3.
Frond bi- or tripinnate. Fertile frond not seen, sterile frond, or primary pinna,
with a rachis having on the upper face a raised line on each side bordering a chan-
nel, and on the under side convex. Ultimate pinnx subopposite or alternate, distant,
inserted at an angle of about 45°, very long, slender, and linear in form. Pinnules
subopposite or alternate, very small, thick, and rather coriaceous, subrhombic or
subquadrilateral in shape, inserted by the entire base on the rachis of the ultimate
pinne which has a raised margin on each side. The lower pinnule on the lower side is
often inserted half on the principal rachis. Nerves in about three groups, departing
from a common point of insertion situated rear the lower part of the pinnule, each
group branching freely, the lower group sending off branches only on the lower side,
the lowest of which curve strongly to meet the margin of the pinnule.
In many features this beautiful little plant resembles A. rhombifolius,
and it evidently belongs to the same type of Acrostichides. It seems, how-
ever, to be specifically distinct, for the small size of the pinnules, and the
linear, almost thread-like nature of the pinnz of the ultimate order, are
constant features, so that a specimen may be recognized at a glance. The
stoutness of the principal rachis in Plate VII, Fig. 5, shows that this speci-
men belongs to the lower part of the frond, and if the plant be merely a
small form of A. rhombifolius, the pinnules here should be of the normal
size as seen in A. rhombifolius. 'The nervation is more slender than that of A.
rhombifolius, and owing to the thickness of the leaf substance, cannot be seen
distinctly in many cases. The very long and slender primary pinna shown in
Plate X, Fig. 2, and the smaller form seen in Plate XI, Fig. 4, appear to
belong to a different species from that represented in Plate VII, Fig. 5, and
Plate XII, Fig. 3. These last mentioned forms show the nerves distinctly
and sharply defined, though the leaf substance is thick and the nerves del-
icate. The slender specimens given in Plate X, Fig. 2, and Plate XI, Fig.
4, do not show any nerves, and the epidermis is very thick and coriaceous.
These long and slender pinne, both primary and secondary, cover the
3F
34 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
face of the shale, in some cases, with numbers of pinne reduced almost to
threads, and present a peculiar aspect not easily described. As they do
not present any obvious points of difference from the normal A. microphyllus,
I have not thought it proper, in the absence of nervation, to separate the
plant, even as a variety. The fructification of none of these forms has
been seen.
Formation and locality —Rather rare at Clover Hill, in shaly sandstone,
associated with the main coal seam.
Acrostichides densifolius, spec. nov.
é Plate X, Fig. 1.
Frond bi- or tripinnate. Principal rachis slender, with a channel on the upper
side. Ultimate pinnw, with channeled rachis, subopposite, closely placed, and imbri-
cated. Pinnules subopposite or alternate, separate to the base, closely placed and
imbricated, ovate-subfalcate, thin and membranaceous. Nervation very distinct, but
slender. Middle nerve stout at base, but dissolving into branches at the extremity,
inserted-near the lower part of the pinnule. Lateral nerves going off obliquely, and
branched several times, the lower more frequently so than the upper. Fructified frond
not seen.
The most characteristic features of this plant are the crowded pinnz
and pinnules, and the very distinct though slender nerves. Both the pinnz
of ultimate order and the pinnules overlap considerably. This overlap of
the pinnules is seen in the magnified pinnules, Plate X, Fig. 1¢. Plate X,
Figs. 1a, 16, show the nervation, which is of the kind characteristic of the
Virginia Acrostichides, and of the section of the genus with subfalcate pin-
nules. It will be seen that the shape of the pinnules here also tends to the
subrhombic fprm. ies
This pl@At has a considerable resemblance to Acrostichides linneceefolius,
but this has a peculiar rounded form at the base of the pinnules, showing a
tendency to assume a heart-shape that is never seen in the plant now in
question, and besides A. linnecfolius is never imbricated in the pinnules.
Formation and locality—Very rare at Clover Hill, in strata associated
with the main coal. It comes probably from above the main coal, and in
connection with the series of small upper coal seams. It has never been
found anywhere but at Clover Hill, and only two or three specimens were
obtained.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. an
MERTENSIDES, gen. nov.
Frond bi- or tripinnate, pinne of ultimate order, subopposite or alternate, long,
and linear-lanceolate. Pinnules alternate, inserted at right angles, or nearly so, to
the rachis of the ultimate pinne, fertile ones obtuse, sterile ones somewhat acute, all
subfaleate and distinct to the base, except in the upper part of the primary pinne or
fronds. Middle nerve of the pinnules dissolved towards the apex into branches,
lateral nerves going off obliquely, the lower ones several times branched, the upper
ones branching less often. IF ructification in the form of large globose sori inserted on
a branch of the lateral nerves, or on the summit of an unbranched lateral nerve, and
composed of from 4 to 6 sporangia grouped around a central axis. Sori mostly con-
fined to the lower half of the pinnules. Type, Mertensides bullatus, Pecopteris bullata
of Bunbury.
The plants which I have grouped under the generic name of Merten-
sides have a great resemblance to the Mertensia group of the Gleicheniacez. |
The resemblance is sufficiently great, I think, to entitle these plants to
rank as the precursors, and representatives of the Gleicheniacez, which,
as Heer has shown, appear in force in the lowest Cretaceous beds of Green-
land. The only point of difference between our plants and Mertensia, is in
the absence of the dichotomous branching in Mertensides. They show a
strong resemblance to Asterocarpus, but in Mertensides the fructification as
a rule does not cover the whole pinnule, the upper portion being commonly
free, and showing the nervation distinctly.
Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. spec.),.
Plate XV, Figs.2t05; Plate XVI, Figs1to3; Plate XVII, Figs. 1,2; Plate XVIII, Figs. 1,2; Plate
TOD.G, Wohi, Thy
Frond bi- or tripinnate, perhaps arborescent. Principal rachis marked on the
upper face with a strong ridge near the margin on each border, on the lower face
rounded or cylindrical; ultimate pinne alternate, with a broad, flat rachis, having a
strong woody cord running through the center of it, to which the middle nerves of the
pinnules are attached, sterile and fertile pinnules slightly differing in form, but both
with a thick leaf-substance; sterile pinnules rather more obliquely placed on the
rachis than the fertile ones, and more acute and falcate; fertile pinnules inserted
nearly or quite at right angles to the rachis of the ultimate pinne, oblong, with a
slightly broadened base, bluntly rounded at the apex; pinnules of both sterile and
fertile forms on the lower ultimate pinne, crenately notched on the margin; pinnules
on the upper ultimate pinnz, and toward the summit of the plant, united at base for
a greater or less distance; those of the middle portions of the plant, or the normal
pinnules, separate to the base, all inserted by the whole of the slightly widened base,
on a rachis which appears to have been bordered by a thick coriaceous band, which
causes it to appear much thicker than it really is. Lowest pinnule, on the lower side
36 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
of the ultimate pinne of both sterile and fertile plants, always much larger than the
rest, broadly spatulate in shape, deflexed along the principal rachis, and never con-
taining fructification. Middle nerve dissolving into branches towards its summit,
lateral nerves going off obliquely, the lower ores more freely branched than the upper
ones, which branch once or twice, lateral nerves ‘of the crenulated lowest pinnules
branching several times so as to fill the crenulations, or lobes. Nerves of the deflexed
heteromorphous lowest pinnules branching and diverging in a flabellate manner.
Fructification consisting of large, prominent globose sori, which are composed of five
or six sporangia arrranged radially around an axis; sori confined usually to the lower
half of the pinnules, forming a row on each side of the middle nerve and placed about
half way between the middle nerve and the margin of the pinnules, inserted on one of
the branches of the lateral nerves, usually the lowest one, in pinnules with few sori,
the pinnules then being broader than those that are fully fructified. The latter, or
the fully fructified pinnules, are narrower than. those which have their tips free from
sori, or that are partially fructified, and they have the lateral nerves reduced to a
single pedicel which bears the sorus. The sori are more numerous on the pinnules of
the lower part of the frond and on the pinnules that occur midway on the ultimate
pinne and toward their ends.
The great numbers of finely preserved and large specimens of this
remarkable plant that I have obtained have enabled me to make a very
complete study of it, and to present it in nearly, if not quite all of its numer-
ous forms. I have very fully illustrated it, selecting typical forms from
many hundreds that have passed under my eyes. I hope that the peculiar
features of the plant will excuse the number of figures given. -I will say
here that were it not for the deflexed spatulate pinnule, which is unmistak-
able, I would have been tempted to make several species out of this single
plant. This is a possible error that should always be borne in mind when
one has only a few specimens of a plant before him. The sterile forms
differ from some of the fertile forms quite enough to excuse their separation
as a distinct species in the absence of some such guide as the spatulate pin-
nule. It will be noted that this deflexed spatulate pinnule is the most obvious
characteristic of the plant. It resembles the similarly placed heteromor-
phous pinnule of Odontopteris. The only plant of the younger formations
that has a feature like this is the Pecopteris lobifolia of Lindley and Hutton,
found in the Odlite of Yorkshire, England. Our plant is of course not to
be identified with this, on account of the numerous obvious points of differ-
ence. Bunbury first described the plant now in question under the name
Pecopteris bullata. His specimen was evidently very imperfect, and did not
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. on
show the heteromorphous pinnule, as he does not give the portion of the
plant occupied by this pinnule in his figure in the article in the ‘Quarterly
Journal of the Geological Society.” Bunbury’s specimen has its pinnules
distorted by being pressed into the shale. They thus appear narrower at
base than they should be.
This plant seems to be the same with the Pecopteris, compared by Pro-
fessor Rogers with Pecopteris obtusifolia of Lindl. and Hutt, but which he does
notname. Professor Rogers seems to have obtained a very imperfect speci-
men. The rachis of the ultimate pinne is usually very broad and flat, and has
in its center a prominent woody portion, to which the middle nerves of the
pinnules are attached. This seems to be bordered by a thick leathery mar-
gin which may be really a sort of wing. The bases of the pinnules are
attached to this, but their middle nerves pass through it to join the woody
central axis. This axis is well shown in Plate XV, Fig. 2, where the margin
is quite wide, and makes the rachis appear to be very broad The princi-
pal rachis is quite strongly ridged on each side, and is often very strong, being
sometimes more than a centimeter wide. I have seen some fragments of the
primary pinnee that were over 45 centimeters long in which the spread of
the ultimate pinne was 30 centimeters. These all appear to be pinne
belonging to an arborescent plant. The upper pinnules, especially of the
sterile frond, are united for a considerable distance above their bases, while
the pinnules of the lower fertile pinnee become crenately lobed, and tend to
pass into pinne. The shape of the fertile pinnules is very constant and
characteristic. They have a slightly expanded base, but above the base
are oblong, slightly faleate, and very bluntly rounded off, while they stand
nearly or quite at right angles to the rachis upon which they are inserted.
The sterile pinnules have a somewhat different shape. They have a pro-
portionally broader base, are more obliquely inserted, and are more acute
and falcate. The nervation is the same in both sterile and fertile pinnules,
and the heteromorphous pinnule is present in both sterile and fertile fronds.
This pinnule sometimes becomes very large, as is shown in Plate XV, Figs.
4, 5, both of natural size.
The fructification shows many points of interest. Asa rule the sori
are comparatively few, and irregularly scattered on the pinnules nearest the
38 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
principal rachis, while none are ever found on the deflexed heteromorphous
pinnule. They become more numerous in the pinnules and more regularly
placed as they depart from the main rachis. They are most numerous on
the pinnules of the lower pinnz, and diminish in number in the pinnules of
the upper pinne, where they often become very few and even single, and
are scattered irregularly on the pinnules. These features are well shown in
Plate XVI, Fig. 1, where we have only single sori in the uppermost pin-
nules, and also in Plate XVIII, Fig. 1, where they are seen to diminish in
number on the pinnules toward the principal rachis. On by far the greater
number of fructified plants the sori occupy only the lower half of the pin-
nules, and then the nerves are plainly to be seen in the ends of the pinnules.
This feature is shown in Bunbury’s figure. Plate XVI, Fig. 1a, represents
a pinnule not fully fructified, where the tips are free from sori. They are
the magnified pinnules of Fig. 1. More rarely we find the pinnules fully
fructified and bearing sori to the summit, as represented in Plate XVIII,
Fig..2._ These pinnules are narrower and more elongate than the partially
fructified pinnules represented in Plate XVI, Fig. 1. The nerves here are,
so far as seen, only in the form of pedicels bearing the sori, while the pin-
nules represented in Plate XVI, Fig. 1a, show that the sori are borne on a
lower branch of the lateral nerves. The sori appear somewhat differently,
according to the manner in which the imprint has been formed. Very often
they appear as raised globose prominences which, under a strong lens and
when exceptionally well preserved, show the compound nature of the sorus.
In other cases they appear as pits rounded in shape, with a central circular
depression, caused by the axis. In this form they are represented in Plate
XVI, Fig. 1a. When the structure can be made out, the sori are seen to
be composed of five or six sporangia ranged around an axis, as seen in Plate
XVIII, Fig. 2a, which represents a fully fructified pinnule of Fig. 2. Here
the nerves are obliterated, or at least cannot be made out, except the basal
portions of the lateral nerves, which attach the sori to the middle nerve.
The fructification of this plant resembles that of Laccopteris but the
frond is not digitately divided, as in that genus. Plate XVIII, Fig. 1, rep-
resents the lower portion of a large specimen in which the pinnules are
crenately lobed. Plate XV, Fig. 3, represents a pinna from a similar por-
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. ; 39
tion of the plant in which the fructification is wanting. Fig. 3a represents
a magnified pinnule of the same. Plate XIX, Fig. 1, represents a portion
of the frond as it appears when seen from the upper side, the entire leaf-
substance being preserved. As this is thick and coriaceous, the sori and
nerves do not appear distinctly. In this specimen no sori appear on the
pinnules of the upper pinne. The ridged upper surface of the principal
rachis and the woody cord of the central portion of the ultimate pinne are
plainly shown in this specimen. Plate XVII, Fig. 1, gives a portion of the
middle part of a sterile frond or primary pinna, Fig. 1a represents the ner-
vation of a magnified pinnule of this specimen, and Fig. 1b the heteromor-
phous pinnule as here shown. Plate XVII, Fig. 2, gives a portion of the
upper part of a sterile frond, and Fig. 2a the nervation of a magnified pin-
nule of the same. Plate XVI, Fig. 3, gives a somewhat abnormal form of
the upper part of a sterile specimen where the pinnules are more ovate than
in the normal form, and the heteromorphous pinnule less heteromorphous
than usual. Plate XVI, Fig. 2, gives still another abnormal form. Plate
XV, Fig. 2, gives the normal form of the lower portion of a plant of large
size. Fig. 5, same plate, gives a fragment of a heteromorphous pinnule
seen detached from its rachis, and of natural size. It shows the great size
that some of these pinnules attained. Plate XVI, Fig. 1, represents a fruc-
tified form of common occurrence, in which the sori of the upper pinnules
become few in number and are irregularly placed. Plate XVIII, Fig. 2,
represents a fully fructified form of the plant which is not uncommon.
Formation and locality.—Abundant in the shales and shaly sandstones
over the lower coal at Carbon Hill and Clover Hill; found also at the
Gowry shaft near Midlothian. Bunbury gives Deep Run in addition.
Mertensides distans, spec. nov.
Plate XV, Fig. 1.
Sterile frond not seen. Fertile frond bi- or tripinnate, perhaps arborescent. Frond,
or primary pinna, very long and apparently linear-lanceolate in outline. Ultimate
pinne linear in shape, and subopposite. Pinnules thick and coriaceous, remotely
placed and alternate, standing nearly at right angles with -the rachis, very small,
ovate-oblong, subfaleate, inserted by the entire base, and bluntly rounded at the ends.
Nervation not disclosed. Fructification in the form of sori, composed of about 4
sporangia, grouped radially around an axis, and occupying the lower half of the
40 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
pinnules. Sori on the pinnules of the lowest pinne few, and often single, irregularly
grouped; those of the pinnules of the upper part of the frond more numerous, and at
most 2 to 3 on each side of the midrib.
This small plant has a striking likeness to the Gleicheniacez in the
smallness of the pinnules, their coriaceous character, and the small number
of sori, which in the lower pinnules are often single on a pinnule, or one on
each side of the middle nerve. The leaf substance is so dense that no trace
of the nerves, except the middle nerve, can be made out. The sori are very
large in proportion to the size of the pinnules, and increase in number from
the lower to the upper portions of the plant. The very considerable dis-
tance apart of the pinnules is a noteworthy feature. They are frequently,
especially in the middle and upper parts of the plant, placed at a greater
distance apart than half the width of the pinnules. Plate XV, Fig. 1, rep-
resents what is evidently a portion of a very long and slender frond or
primary pinna. From the rigid and stout character of the primary and
secondary rachis, it would seem to be a primary pinna from some large
frond.
It is strikingly like Gleichenites microphyllus, Schenk, from the Rheetic
of Germany, see ‘Flora der Grenzschicht,” plate xxii, figs. 7, 8. The
only difference is that the pinnules of the Virginia plant are more remotely
placed. In this point it is nearer to Heer’s Pecopteris gracilis, from the Trias
of Europe. Schenk says that he would have considered his plant as iden-
tical with that of Heer, were it not that his observations showed that none
of the plants of the Trias were identical with any of those of the Rheetic.
This, I think, is not a sufficient reason for separating them. At any rate,
our plant is very closely allied to both of these.
Formation and locality—Very rare at Clover Hill, in argillaceous, flaggy
sandstone, probably from above the main coal, and associated with the
group of small coal beds.
AsTEROCARPUS, Goeppert.
I place, with a. good deal of hesitation, the following two species in
Goeppert’s genus Asterocarpus. They have some resemblance to the plants
grouped as Mertensides, but on the whole seem to approach nearer to the
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 41
genus Asterocarpus than any other. They may, with all the greater pro-
priety, be placed in this genus, as this is acknowledged to resemble closely
Mertensia. Indeed, Weiss thinks that Laccopteris ought not to have been
separated from Asterocarpus, and that both much resemble the Gleiche-
niaceze. My chief reason for separating these plants from Mertensides is
the fact that the pinnules are always fully fructified.
' Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov.
Plate XIX, Figs. 2-5; Plate XX, Figs. 1, 2; Plate XXI, Figs. 1, 2; Plate XXII, Figs. 1-3; Plate XXIII,
Figs. 1-4; Plate XXIV, Figs. 1, 2.
Frond very large, probably arborescent, rachis sometimes 24 centimeters thick,
tripinnatifid or quadripinnatifid, quite polymorphous. Ultimate pinnz opposite or
subopposite. Pinnules of sterile and fertile plants different, all thick and coriaceous.
Pinnules of the sterile plant, in the uppermost portion of the frond, or primary pinne
simple, with entire borders, subopposite or alternate, oblong, bluntly rounded at the
summit, very slightly faleate, and slightly decurrent, those of normal size 28 milli-
meters long and 8 millimeters wide in the middle; terminal pinnules obliquely inserted,
decurrent, and united for a considerable distance. Sterile pinnules in proceeding to
lower portions of the frond become first undulate on the margins, then crenately lobed,
and finally cut into ovate acute lobes, which are separate to below their middle, thus
causing the pinnules to pass into pinnatifid pinne. Pinnules of the fructified frond
undergoing the same modifications from the upper to the lower part of the frond as the
sterile pinnules, but narrower, very thick, and dense, more acute and more distant,
decurrent by a broad wing; nerves varying much with the different parts of the plant
and the different forms of the pinnules; in the fertile pinnules they are obliterated,
except the very thick middle nerve, and single strong lateral nerves bearing the sori.
In the sterile pinnules of the upper part of the frond the midrib is strong, but dissolves
into branches towards the apex. Lateral nerves of the lower part of the pinnule
grouped, three nerves going off from the same point of insertion, the middle one being
forked near its base. In the middle and upper part of the pinnules the lateral nerve
forks at its insertion, and the upper branch forks again near its base. All the branches
are strong, sharply defined, and prominent, and curve strongly outwards to meet the
margin of the pinnule. In the undulate and crenulate pinnules the lateral nerves fork
so as to form flabellate groups which fill the lobes. In the pinnatifid pinne of the lower
portions of the frond each ovate lobe has a middle nerve which at base is strong, but
towards the apex dissolves into branches. The lateral nerves go off in part from the
rachis of the pinna, and also from the middle nerve of the lobe, and are once forked;
all are strong and very distinct. Fructification in the form of rounded sori, composed
of 5 or 6 sporangia, grouped radially around a central point, and forming two rows,
one on each side of the middle nerve. The lower row is decurrent, occupying the wing
of the pinnules. Sometimes the sori are found only on the ends of large pinnules of
the normal sterile form. These are then much narrowed in the parts occupied by the
sori, but otherwise unchanged.
42 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
This plant is one of the finest and most interesting in the coal field.
I have been enabled to obtain a large number of well preserved specimens
of it, which show its very polymorphous nature and the many peculiari-
ties presented by it. In the first place the fructification presents a very
different aspect according as the upper or under surface of the pinnules, or
the imprints of these, are seen. The imprints of the upper surface of the
fructified pinnules, or the upper surface itself, present the form given in
Plate XXIII, Fig. 1. This figure represents the imprint of the upper sur-
face of the fructified pinnules of large size, and -Fig. 2 the imprint of the
same surface of the lobed pinnz of the lower portion of the plant. It will
be noticed that the sori appear here as elongated swellings, occupying the
place of the lateral nerves. They have the general character of the fructi- |
fication usually assigned to the fossil genus Asplenites. The sori, however,
are really round, as may be seen when the under side of the pinnules is
presented to view with the leaf-substance preserved, and have the character
described. The peculiar elongation shown when the upper side or its
imprint is seen is caused by the fact that the rounded sorus and its strong
nerve, when pressed against the thick, dense leaf-substance of the pinnules,
do not present a sharply defined outline of the separate parts when seen
from the upper side, but the sorus and nerve produce a club-shaped promi-
nence in which the sorus occupies the thickest part. I think that the same
thing would happen when any thick coriaceous pinnules were pressed down
upon a yielding substance like shale with its lower surface in contact with
the shale. Hence many of the apparent elongated sori of the type of Asple-
nites may really be rounded. Plate XXIII, Fig. 4, represents the imprint
of the under side of the large fructified pinnules, and gives the termination
of one of the pinne. Plate XXII, Fig. 2, gives the form presented by pin-
nules, which are fructified only at the ends. The rest of the pinnule has the
usual nervation and other characters of the large sterile pinnules. This
specimen had all the leaf substance of the plant preserved, and showed the
under side of the pinnules with the sori. Plate XXIV, Figs. 1 and 2, rep-
resent forms in which the pinnules are more remote than in the normal
forms. They may belong to a variety of Asterocarpus Virginiensis, sufi-
ciently distinct to be separated as such; but as the plant in question shows
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 43
a great tendency to vary without losing its essential characters, I have
thought it best to unite it with this somewhat abnormal form. Plate XXIII,
Fig. 4a, is an enlarged portion of Fig. 4, giving the form of the sori which is
the same as that found in the sori of Figs. 1 and 2. Plate XXII, Fig. 1,
gives the normal form and size of the pinnules from the upper part of the
frond, where the pinnatifid pinne of the lower part of the frond are
reduced to simple pinnules. Fig. 1a, gives the nervation of one of these
pinnules. Plate XIX, Fig. 4, represents a character sometimes seen where
the middle nerve of the pinnules becomes very broad and flat, almost rib-
bon-like. Plate XXI, Fig. 2, gives normal pinnules somewhat more remote
than usual, and broader. Plate XIX, Fig. 5, represents a portion near the
upper end of one of the ultimate pinne. It shows that the pinnules here
are very decurrent, and are united for a considerable distance. I have not
in a single instance seen the end of one of these large upper pinne. Plate
XIX, Fig. 3, gives a portion of one of the pinne near its end, where the
pinnules are united for a considerable distance. It, as well as Fig. 5, shows
the manner in which the lateral nerves go off from the rachis of the pinnze
in these uppermost pinnules. Plate XXIII, Fig. 3, gives a portion of one
of the pinnze with very long pinnules, the lowest of which are undulate on
the margin. In Plate XXI, Fig. 1, we have 7 pinnz which evidently go
off from a rachis not shown in the specimen. They show the graduation
from simple pinnules to undulate and crenate pinnules. Fig. 1 gives an
enlarged pinnule of this specimen to show the nervation and Fig. la a por-
tion of another. In Plate XX, Fig. 1, we have three pinnz from a lower
portion of the frond which show the increasing depth of the lobation. Fig.
10 is an enlarged portion of the upper pinna to show the nervation, and
Fig. la is from a lower pinna likewise enlarged to show the nervation.
Plate XIX, Fig. 2, represents the pinnatifid pinnz from the lower part of
the frond corresponding to the simple pinnules of the upper part, and Fig.
2a gives enlarged lobes of a portion of one of these pinne to show the
nervation. Plate XXII, Fig. 3, represents what is probably a portion of
the stipe, and the branch a may be the base of a rachis bearing pinne such
as those in Plate XX, Fig. 1. This would make the plant at least quadri-
pinnatifid.
44 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
This plant must have had magnificent proportions. Portions of pinnz
seen indicate that those parts of the plant containing them were over half
a meter wide and more than a meter in length. This fern shows affinities
with several previously described plants. Professor Newberry’s Alethopteris
Whitneyi, obtained from Los Bronces, Sonora, figures of which are given in
plate vii of Captain Macomb’s report of his ‘Expedition in New Mexico
and Utah,” closely resembles our plant. His Pecopteris falcatus, obtained
from the same locality, and figured in plate vi, fig. 3, is much like some of
the fructified forms of Asterocarpus Virginiensis. _Emmons’s Pecopteris fal-
catus, obtained from the Mesozoic of North Carolina, has a certain resem-
blance to it. Alethopteris Indica, from the Rajmahal Hills of India, as de-
scribed and figured by Oldham and Morris, and also by Feistmantel, is
much like our plant. It does not seem to be identical with any of these
plants, but is nearest to Newberry’s plant and to the Indian plant of those
mentioned above. Our plant is probably the one that Professor Rogers, in
his paper on the ‘Age of the Coal Rocks of Eastern Virginia,” compares
with Pecopteris Miimsterianus of Sternberg, from Bullenreuth, which is, how-
ever, 2 Woodwardites, according to Schimper. Heer’s plant Merianopteris
augusta, obtained from the Lettenkohle of Neue Welt, is much like Astero-
carpus Virginiensis in most points, except the fructification. The figure
given by Heer, in his ‘Pflanzen der Trias,” plate xxxvii, fig. 1, of a large
specimen of Merianopteris augusta, is almost a fac-simile of the pinnatifid
pinnee of the lower part of Asterocarpus Virginiensis. Heer’s plant, how-
ever, lacks the large simple pinnules found in the Virginia fossil, and the
fructification is quite different. In the fossil from Neue Welt the sori are
rounded, simple, and placed between the strong, simple lateral nerves.
Bunbury gives in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society,
vol. iii, pl. ii, fig. 2, a representation of what he calls Filicites fimbriatus,
found at Deep Run, Virginia. It is clearly an imperfect specimen of the
fructified form of this plant, and is much like the impression that the plant
represented in Plate XXIII, Fig. 2, might leave on a rock if imperfectly
preserved.
Formation and locality.—Asterocarpus Virginiensis is quite widely dis-
tributed, but is not very abundant at any locality. It is found in the strata,
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 45
usually argillaceous, flaggy sandstones, overlying the lower coal seam at
Clover Hill, Carbon Hill, Midlothian, and at Manakin in the beds pierced
by the Aspinwall Shaft.
Asterocarpus Virginiensis,“var. obtusiloba.
Plate XXI, Figs. 3,4; Plate XXIV, Figs. 3-5; Plate XXV, Fig. 1.
Frond tripinnatifid, perhaps arborescent. Fertile form not seen. Sterile pinne
of ultimate order linear-lanceolate, sometimes very long, with stout, rigid rachises,
alternate, going off at an angle of about 45°, and slightly curved upwards. Lobes, or
united pinnules, alternate, united by one-third their length, and more, very thick and
coriaceous, broadly oval, with very blunt and rounded terminations, very slightly
curved forwards. Nerves very distinct, sharply defined, usually strong and promi-
nent. Midrib inserted below the middle of the pinnule or lobe, stout at base, dis-
solved towards the summit into branches. Lateral nerves somewhat various. In all
cases some depart from the principal rachis and curve at first outwards and towards
their extremities, often upwards, meeting but not uniting with the similarly placed
lateral nerves of the adjoining pinnules. Lateral nerves from the midrib going off
obliquely, and forked from the base either once or twice, those forking twice being in
the lower part of the pinnules; usually strong, but sometimes slender and so much
crowded that the long, slender branches are so closely approximated as to appear
single.
This plant has a constant facies of its own, and being found only at
Clover Hill, it might perhaps with propriety be separated as a distinct
species. As, however, the general character is similar to that of Asterocar-
pus Virginiensis, and as this plant is quite variable, I have thought it best
to unite the two. The points of difference, however, are quite numerous.
The ultimate pinnz are not opposite, or subopposite, as in A. Virginiensis,
the lobes or united pinnules are broader, blunter, and united more uniformly
to about half-way their length, and no single or simple large pinnules are
ever seen. These simple large pinnules are the most common forms of the
normal A. Virginiensis. The variety now in question appears only at Clover
Hill, where it occurs with the normal A. Virginiensis, from which it is easily
distinguished. The form represented in Plate XXV, Fig. 1, if seen alone,
would be entitled to rank as a distinct species, but when it is taken in con-
nection with the forms given in Plate XXIV, Figs. 3, 4, the separation from
the normal A. Virginiensis is not easily made. The form given in Plate
XXYV, Fig. 1, presents some peculiarities. The nerves here are very much
crowded, slender, and sharply defined. The lateral nerves fork at their
46 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
insertion, and the long, thread-like branches are so closely crowded together
that, without the help of a lens, they often appear to be single nerves.
This nervation is shown in the magnified pinnules given in Fig. 1a, which
represents two pinnules of Fig. k Plate XXIV, Fig. 3, represents a com-
pound pinna of the more common kind, and Fig. 3a gives enlarged pinnules
of the same. Figs. 4, 5 represent portions of two very long ultimate pinnee,
perhaps from lower down on a compound pinna, like that in Fig. 3. Fig.
5a is a magnified pinnule of Fig. 5, and Fig. 4a a magnified pinnule of Fig.
4. Plate XXI, Fig. 4, represents the upper portion of a compound pinna
corresponding to that represented in Plate XXIV, Fig. 3; and Plate XXI,
Fig. 3, gives the extremity (magnified) of an ultimate pinna of the same.
Formation and locality.—The plant is found only at Clover Hill, in
shales associated with the highest of the series of small coal seams, above
the main seam.
Asterocarpus platyrachis, spec. nov.
Plate XXV, Figs. 2-6; Plate XXVI, Fig. 1.
Frond bi- or tripinnate, perhaps arborescent. Principal rachis rigid and stout,
one centimeter and more in diameter. Ultimate pinne alternate or subopposite, with a
broad flat rachis. Sterile and fertile pinnules different, sterile pinnules ovate oblong,
bluntly rounded at the extremities and slightly faleate, united for some distance above
the bases. Nervation Pecopteris-like, midrib strong and distinct to near the end, and
then splitting into branches. Lateral nerves very distinct, going off obliquely, fork-
ing near the midrib, the two branches diverging slowly, and continuing nearly par-
allel to one another until they meet the margin of the pinnule. Pinne of the upper-
most part of the primary pinna or frond, passing through lobed pinne into simple
pinnules. These latter near the summit of the frond are much reduced in size, and
are united more and more, reproducing the form of the pinnules of the lower part of
the frond. Fertile pinnules, without lateral nerves, having a stout rigid midrib, with
large sori placed on the margin of the pinnules, and covering most of their surface, form-
ing a row on each side of the midrib, and each row gradually approaching the other
towards the summit of the pinnules, forming thus a pinnule elongate-triangular in
shape. More rarely fertile and sterile pinnules occur together on the same pinna. The
sori are formed of four or five sporangia, which usually appear to be consolidated at
their bases, but at their summits are separate and grouped radially around a central
point.
The sori are very large and prominent, placed on the margin of the
narrowed fertile pinnules, and occupy most of their surface. The two rows
approach each other towards the summit of the pinnules, and are capped
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 47
at the tip of the pinnule with a single sorus. These fertile pinnules have a
peculiar rigid aspect, and this, with their sharp triangular form and their
oblique insertion, distinguishes them from the fertile pinnules of Mertensides
bullatus, which, when fully fructified, somewhat resemble them. Seen under
a strong lens the sori more commonly present the form given in Plate XXV,
Fig. 3 b, but they sometimes appear as given in Fig. 3 ¢ composed of 4
sporangia rather remotely placed and grouped around an axis. The form
given in Fig. 3b somewhat resembles the dehiscence of Cyathea, but there
is no doubt that the sorus is compound. The specimen depicted in Plate
XXV, Fig. 3, in part, was a very large fragment of what seems to have
been a compound pinna of some large frond. Only a portion of the speci-
men is figured. It is 25 centimeters long and 13 wide. This width and
length are much below the former dimensions of the specimen, for much of
the length of the ultimate pinne had been lost from breaking, and a large
portion is wanting from both ends of the primary pinna or frond. Plate
XXVI, Fig. 1, represents what seems to be a portion from the upper part
of the fertile plant. Plate XXV, Figs. 2, 4, and 6, represent portions of
the sterile frond, and Fig. 5 gives a somewhat abnormal form, containing
on the same pinna both fertile and sterile pinnules. Plate XXV, Fig. 6,
gives what appears to be the upper part of a sterile compound pinna where
the pinnee are reduced to pinnules. Fig. 4a gives enlarged leaflets of Fig.
4 to show the nervation. The fertile pinnules of this plant resemble some-
what Germar’s Pecopteris truncata, now considered as an Asterocarpus. Our
plant is, of all previously described plants, nearest to Heer’s Asterocarnus
Meriani, found in the Keuper of Switzerland. It differs from this plant
in the stouter midrib of the sterile and fertile pinnules, in the acute fertile
pinnules, in the larger sori, which are placed on the margin of the pinnules
and not within the laminee, as in Heer’s plant, and in the number of the
sporangia, which are often five, while Heer’s plant contains only four, and
also in the much greater size of the rachis of the ultimate pinne.
Formation and locality—The plant is found only at Clover Hill, in strata
associated with the main coal seam.
48 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Asterocarpus penticarpa, spec. nov.
Plate XXVI, Fig. 2.
Frond bipinnate. Fertile frond alone seen. Rachis of the ultimate pinne stout
andrigid. Pinnules reduced to groups of sori, which have in their grouping a triangular
outline. The sori form two rows, one on each side of the midrib, which is not dis-
tinetly seen, containing in each two sori, the two rows being capped by a single sorus,
giving five in all. The groups stand at right angles to the rachis. The last sori next
to the rachis of the pinna are larger than the rest. The sori are rounded and prom-
inent, with a depression in the center. Further details could not be made out.
This small plant was found only in a very fragmentary condition, and
on a rock too coarse-grained to permit the structure of the sori to be made
out. The sori are quite large and prominent, showing a slight depression
in the center, which sometimes presents an appearance like the indusium of
Aspidium. The two lower sori are considerably larger than the rest, and
the groups which represent fructified pinnules stand at right angles with
the rachis. From the large size and the convex shape of the sori, and the
depression in the center of each, they appear to belong to a species of
Asterocarpus, and the groups of sori are not unlike Asterocarpus Sternbergii,
Goepp., from the Carboniferous formation, as figured by Schimper in “Pal.
Vég.,” plate xli, fig. 15. A. Sternbergit has, however, more numerous sori,
and the groups are oblong in shape.
Formation and locality—F¥ound only at Clover Hill, in strata associated
with the main coal.
PECOPTERIS, Brongt.
Pecopteris rarinervis, spec. nov.
Plate XXVI, Figs. 3, 4.
Frond bipinnate ? Pinne of the ultimate order, with a stout, rigid rachis. Pin-
nules oblong, subfalcate, separate to the base, opposite, bluntly rounded at the extrem-
ities, united more and more towards the end of the ultimate pinne, and finally at the
ends coalescing into a single undulate terminal pinnule. Nervation Pecopteris-like.
Midrib strong to near the apex of the pinnule, sending off at regular intervals lateral
nerves, which are quite remotely placed, forked near the middle of their length, and
maintain a nearly parallel position to each other.
This small plant was seen only in a very fragmentary condition, and
consequently its true place cannot be definitely fixed. It is so much like
some of the Pecopterids of the Carboniferous formation that at one time i
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES. 49
thought that specimens of it must have really come from that horizon, and
have by mistake been placed with the plants from the Mesozoic. There is
no doubt, however, that it isa Mesozoic plant. It is a good deal like Heer’s
Asterocarpus Meriani, and also resembles A. platyrachis, but the fact that
the pinnules are always separate to their bases, except at the ends of the
ultimate pinne, will distinguish this plant.
Formation and locality—Found at Manakin, in the material taken out
of the Aspinwall Shaft, and at Carbon Hill, in the strata over the bottom
coal seam.
CLADOPHLEBIS, Saporta.
Cladophlebis subfalcata, spec. nov.
Plate XXIX, Fig. 5.
Frond bi- or tripinnate. Principal rachis stout and rigid. Ultimate pinne linear-
lanceolate in shape, alternate, and going off nearly at a right angle from the principal
rachis. Pinnules alternate, separate to the base, inclined forward, oblong-ovate, and
subfalcate, rather thin and delicate in texture. Middle nerve strong at base, and dis-
solving into branches toward the end. Lateral nerves going off obliquely, the lower
forking twice, the upper once forked, or one of the branches forking a second time.
Nerves sharply defined but slender.
This plant is, I think, identical with none that have been previously
described. It is something like seen elem ae ae |
A. penticarpus
Pecopteris rarinervis
Oladophlebis subfaleata........---
microphylla
pseudowhitbiensis ....-..------
rotundiloba
Lonchopteris Virginiensis
Olathropteris ptatyphylla, expansa.
Pseudodaneopsis reticulata
P. nervosa
Sagenopteris rhotfolia
Dicranopteris spec. 1..--.--.---
aegeaas
Allied to Newropteris
Schenleiniana.
cilis.
Allied to Z. columnare.
Plants found in the
Rhetic or allied to
such.
Near to S. hoerensis.
Very near to M. gigan-
tea.
Near to A. Goeppertia-
nus.
Allied to Cyclopteris
pachyrachis.
Near to Gleichenites mi-
crophyllus.
7
Allied to Asplenites
Rosserti.
x
Near D. Romeriana.
x
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE FLORA.
93
Fossil Plants from the Older Mesozoic of Virginia—Continued.
i A found i i ;
ouel plants fro tho plder Me- | Plants pecear | "/irias or allied to Faraase oralied to Rhee or allied te
TEAC SOTO ososinsmerceceenc abe jaccbcogesochocenodl patos rossice asa aheeaeee Nearto P.Andreanum
CLR OP RYT TAAGNIR sodas 2 nt nance cee see ans tan|sowecncecan sedan -iewans x
O. truncatum ........--.--------- a | mieten el ee oe
OS DFOUNMIVUN Es aaa meal ae cesa a | ae cael dan amsle dee a+ | oeamacceseas tes anleseees|ckbel cbhssneeaetaeeeene
O. grandifolium......---.--+----+ BS Beebe asaSseraesstaccsesd Gee-ekcceseicodgencontes
C. giganteum .....---.----------- Pie Reece eceeedsed-esgcecese bese écasater ses cocGa See
Podozamites SEAT OUOMEN satee wtete cine ic an apie eu nobn ets tanmobe et ebivs seas csceas Near to P. lanceolatus,
minor.
Pi tenuistria0gs = ----=- 005-5 --- Pll be SB Eee onb an eSee red | Sec so saesnrese-pase see
Sphenozamites Rogersianus....-.. PO) all aeeamniee ceed cee neato | Sep aie e = aan eee
CU COINTER TERURTOFINE ><. = slecack os eoccsanmanenctescs|=wuuswenccbuceceansseste Near to 0. Cutchensis.
Zamiostrobus Virginiensis ....-.- DCM A) Ol Seestencs ounsrecne ne soees Saas ee mene ans toe
SEF OT YE MIOMADD MEE oi wim ata cree nfs oe all mee ate aera e sm ares | eee eee ier ee | Oe eae See cee ne ae tee Allied to B. teniata.
CHAN GLENS UNGELS 2 waa w's Joeman! saa aa E Renee ee vam can neaee en aaleke shade wan Osea eee eceees >
Ad MANE oss an sen caeee ees eee 21 4 3+5 4+8
We have thus far found in the Mesozoic strata of Virginia forty-two
species of plants sufficiently well preserved to be of some value in deter-
mining the age of the beds. Twenty-one of these appear to have no very
near relations in the European floras. This large proportion, or 50 per cent.,
of species peculiar to Virginia, will be considerably lessened if we take into
consideration the North Carolina plants and the plants found by Dr. New-
berry and others in the older Mesozoic strata of Sonora, &c. But, as the
age of this latter Hora yet remains to be fixed, the plants common to it and
the Virginia Mesozoic cannot be considered in any attempt to fix the age
This large proportion of species found in Virginia
Although we do not find
specific identity in the case of any of these plants, yet we may get some
of the Virginia strata.
and not found in Europe is a noteworthy fact.
hints as to their age from their generic characters and probable affinities.
Taking up the list in order, then, we may note the following facts. We
must omit, of course, the undetermined species of Schizoneura. It may be
the cast of the interior of the S. Virginiensis.
We find two species of Acrostichides peculiar to Virginia, A. microphyl-
lus and A. densifolius. It must not be forgotten that these two plants may
not be Acrostichides, as their fertile fronds have not been found. There
can, however, be little doubt, I think, that they are Acrostichides, for the
two types of the sterile forms of Acrostichides are both represented in them,
94 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
the rhombic type in A. microphyllus, and the oblong-ovate, subfalcate type
in A. densifolius. A. densifolius has some features in common with Pecop-
teris Haiburnensis, Lind. & Hut., from the lower Odlite of Yorkshire. It
has the same thin, membranaceous texture, and slender, copiously branched
nerves, while the shape of the pinnules is something like that of the Odlitic
plant. A. microphyllus might be compared with Sphenopteris Réssertiana,
Presl, from the Rheetic of Germany. In any case these two plants belong
to a type which is, in the main, characteristic of strata younger than the.
Trias.
Mertensides bullatus, by its fructification, belongs to the Gleicheniacee,
and seems to have no very near relationship with any previously described
plant. Asterocarpus Virginiensis also cannot help us in fixing the age of the
strata containing it. The same may be said of A. penticarpus, as it is too
fragmentary and poorly preserved to disclose with certainty its true char-
acter. Pecopteris rarinervis may be omitted for the same reasons.
The genus Cladophlebis is characteristic of the Rhzetic and Jurassic.
The five species of this genus not found in European strata, viz., C. auricu-
lata, C. ovata, C. microphylla, C. pseudowhitbiensis, and C. rotundiloba, have a
decided Jurassic facies, and some of the species would be placed by some
authors in the group of Alethopteris or Cladophlebis Whitbiensis. The orig-
inal Pecopteris Whitbiensis of Lindley & Hutton, and that of Brongniart, as
it seems to me, if they are the same species, belong to the genus Clado-
phlebis, as Schimper has stated. Heer has taken the name Whitbiensis for
certain species of Asplenites described from the Jurassic of Amur. It would
seem that there is no warrant for assuming, as Heer has done, that the orig-
inal species Pecopteris Whitbiensis is a species of Asplenites. -The fructifica-
tion of this plant has not been found, and until it is found it should remain
in the genus Cladophlebis.
The small plant, C. microphylla, has some points in common with
Gleichenia Bindrabunensis, or Pecopteris gleichenoides of Oldham & Morris,
from the Rajmahal Group of India, but it is a larger plant. The number of
species of Cladophlebis in the Virginia Mesozoic lends to the flora a Jurassic
facies.
The two species of Pseudodanzopsis are more like the Triassic genus
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE FLORA. 95
Daneopsis than any other, yet the points of difference are very significant.
Pseudodaneopsis is clearly, in its reticulated nervation, a higher type than
Danzopsis, and this points to a later age for it.
The genus Ctenophyllum is characteristic of the Rheetic and Jurassic
formations. The species C. grandifolium finds its analogues in the large
Pterophylla of the Jurassic formation of India, of the type of P. Footeanum.
The genus Podozamites is Rheetic and Jurassic. Podozamites tenuistriatus is
more like P. angustifolius Schenk, of the Rheetic of Europe, than any other
plant, while P. Emmonsi finds its nearest relatives among Oélitic forms.
Sphenozamites Rogersianus is evidently one of the most complex of the
species of this genus, which Saporta considers to be the highest in grade
among the Cycadaceous plants. Sphenozamites is a Jurassic type. We
find, then, that the generic character of the species peculiar to Virginia
points strongly to a Rheetic and Jurassic age for these plants.
In the Triassic column of the table we find four species, or 9 per cent,
that show some affinity with Triassic plants. These are Schizonewra Vir-
giniensis, Mertensides distans, Asterocarpus platyrachis, and Acrostichides rhom-
bifolius. Three of these show an equally close affinity with Rheetic forms.
Schizoneura Virginiensis may be compared with S. Meriani of the Trias and
S. herensis of the Rheetic, for both of these latter are probably the same
species. Mertensides distans resembles Pecopteris gracilis, Heer, of the Trias,
and also Gleichenites microphyllus, Presl, of the Rhéetic. These two species
are also probably the same. Acrostichides rhombifolius resembles Neuropteris
Schenleiniana, Schimp., of the Trias, and Cyclopteris pachyrachis of the Rheetic.
We have, then, only one plant in the Virginia Mesozoic which has a greater
affinity with a Triassic form than any other; this is Asterocarpus platyrachis,
which is nearer A. Meriani than any other form. This degree of resemblance
in the list is very small, and would be fully accounted for by the survival
of plants of the Triassic flora.
Three identical, and five allied species, or 19 per cent., find their rep-
resentatives in the Jurassic formation. The Jurassic element of this flora is,
then, much stronger than the Triassic, even without counting the plants of
Jurassic generic type found in the species peculiar to Virginia.
We find four species identical with Rheetic forms and eight allied to
96 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
them, or 28 per cent. The Rheetic can, then, claim the largest percentage
of identical and allied species. Among these we find some of the most
abundant and characteristic forms of the Virginia flora. The great abun-
dance and wide diffusion of Macrotceniopteris maynifolia and Ctenophyllum
Braunianum give these plants especial weight. Acrostichides linneeefolius is
very characteristic of the Virginia Mesozoic, and it finds its near relative in
| A. Geppertianus, a plant highly characteristic of the Rheetic.
It is clear, then, from these facts that we must consider this flora as
not older than Rheetic. The only question is whether or not its strong
Jurassic features ought to cause us to regard it as at least Lower Liassic
inage. I think that it is fully as much entitled to be regarded as of Liassic
age as is the flora’ of the Rajmahal Group of India. Feistmantel and
Zigno think that the age of this group is that of the Lias.
Taking everything into consideration, the flora of the older Mesozoic
of Virginia is, of the European floras, nearest to that of Theta, near Bay-
reuth, in Franconia. It has elements which ally it with the plants found
by Dr. Newberry at Los Bronces, Sonora, and it is also allied to the flora
of Steierdorf, Banat, and to that of the Rajmahal Group in India, as well as
that of Bjuf in Sweden. As we shall see, it is essentially the same with the
flora of the Mesozoic strata of North Carolina, described by Dr. eine ss
in his “American Geology,” Part VI.
I append to the description of the flora of the Virginia Mesozoic a brief
account of that of North Carolina. For the sake of greater clearness I think
it best to give this under a distinct head, and to give in the plates copies of
Emmons’s figures.
Pah. Fr,
THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF NORTH CAROLINA.
For the sake of comparing the flora of the older Mesozoic’strata of
North Carolina with the plants from the beds of similar character in Vir-
ginia, I will give in the pages immediately following a brief account of it,
taken from Emmons’s American Geology, Part VI. I will give Emmons’s
description of each plant, using his own words, and then compare the
described fossils with those from Virginia. It will be more satisfactory to
give also the figures published by Emmons, and this I am permitted to do
by his heirs. These figures were often drawn from very imperfect speci-
mens, and the plants represented do not, in all cases, show their true nature
until they are compared with more perfect specimens from Virginia. I
would have preferred to examine the original specimens, but I find on
inquiry that Dr. Emmons’s collections of plants were destroyed during the
late war. In this account I will omit certain obscure plants, such as Gym-
nocaulus, &c, as they have no fixed character and are very uncertain in
nature. I would note that some mistakes seem to have been made in re~
ferring the descriptions to the plates and figures of Emmons’s work, anc’
plate 2, seems to have been omitted from the book, the figures being found.
on plate 6.
Most of Emmons’s plants come from above the horizon of the Meso--
zoic coal-beds of North Carolina. Hence, if this coal be on the. same-
horizon as the Virginia Mesozoic coal, as it probably is, most of the- North
Carolina plants must come somewhat higher up in the series of older: Meso-
zoic strata than those from Virginia. Nearly all of the latter come from the.
beds immediately associated with the Mesozoic coal of Virginia.
Emmons gives the following plants as coming from the bituminous.
shale group that is associated with the coal-beds, viz.: Equisetum columna- .
roides, Calamites punctatus, Walchia angustifolia, and Sphenopteris Egyptiaca.
7F 97
98 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
This bituminous shale group comes some distance above the base of
the North Carolina Mesozoic series of strata, and, as stated, most probably
stands on the horizon of the strata yielding most of the Virginia plants. It
seems to be very poor in fossils. No determinable plants have been found
under this group. The following is Emmons’s description of the above-
named plants. The plates first given in these descriptions refer to the
plates of this work containing the plant in question. Figures given in
Emmons’s quoted descriptions are those of his work. The first and second
of these plants are in Emmons’s text referred to plate 2, but are really
found on plate 6.
Equisetum Columnaroides.
Plate XLIX, Fig. 3.
Emmons’s “Am. Geol.”, plate vi, fig 3, p. 35.
‘“Cuticular surface very reticulate; articulations indistinct; ribs of the stem of
two kinds, the ligulate and tapering; the latter terminate in a point, and are grooved
in the middle. It belongs to the bituminous slate, near the top, and was found within
the gray sandstone, beneath the main coal seam, and in the bituminous slates above.”
I do not find plate 2, in the work of Emmons. In the description given
above the reference is to plate 2, fig. 3, of the ‘‘Am. Geol.” I find, however,
on plate 6, fig. 3, the form depicted on Plate XLIX, Fig. 3, of this work
and this may be the plant in question. It seems to be the same with the
rhizome of Equisetum Rogersi, given on Plate I, Fig. 2, and found at Clo-
ver Hill.
Calamites punctatus.
Plate XLIX, Fig. 4.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am, Geol.”, plate vi, fig. 5, p. 35.
Emmons says of this:
‘“ Stem finely striate; punctures, or bars, between all the striz, sometimes on the
strie. The transverse bars, under a good glass, are much like dots, and do not always
connect the longitudinal lines.”
This plant is referred to plate 2, fig. 5, but I find it on plate 6, fig. 5.
Its locality is not given. It is clearly a fragment of a leaf of Sphenozamites
Rogersianus.
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 99
Walchia angustifolia.
Plate XLIX, Fig. 10.
Emmons’s ‘Am, Geol.”, plate 3, fig. 3.
‘Leaves linear, or slightly lanceolate, and very narrow. All the specimens ob-
served are small and imperfect. Fragments are frequently met with in the soft slates,
but they have changed so much by weathering that the plant has become indistinct,
It has been observed only in the Dan River Coal Field.”
This small fragment seems to be a Cheirolepis very near to, if not
identical with, Cheirolepis Miinsteri.
Sphenopteris Egyptiaca.
Plate XLVIII, Fig. 8.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”, fig 8, p. 36.
Emmons’s description is:
“Frond bipinnate, pinne decreasing slowly in length, elongate; pinnules smooth.
thin, rather obtuse, lower lobes divided from the secondary rachis, but the others appar-
ently attached, edges crenate, or in some instances apparently lobed.”
It occurs only between the little or lower, and the main seam at Egypt,
in the Deep River belt.
It is clear that this plant is not a Sphenopteris. It is closely allied to,
if not identical with, the Acrostichides princeps of Schenk, ‘Flor. Foss. der
Grenzsch,” plate viii, fig. 1, differing from it only in being larger and in
the somewhat more acute form of the pinnules. It has the same undulate
margin and straggling nervation in the pinnules. In the absence of fruc-
tified pinnules, and on account of the greater dimensions of the plant, it
should for the present be retained as a distinct species, and might be called
Acrostichides Egyptiacus.
From this scanty list it will be seen that the bituminous slate group is
remarkably poor in the remains of plants, and does not approach in rich-
ness the strata on the same horizon in the Virginia Mesozoic which at Clo-
ver Hill and elsewhere yield so many fine plants. I pass over without
further mention the animal remains of this group, described by Emmons,
which are not very rare and which are of great interest. I am unable to
say what age would be indicated by them as a whole, but would call atten-
tion to the fact that if they should indicate an age somewhat older than that
derived from the plants, this would be a condition of things similar to that
found in the case of the Lignite Beds of the western portions of the United
100 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
States, where the horizon as derived from the animal remains is Cretaceous
while the plants point to a Tertiary age.
Emmons states that the bituminous slate group is succeeded by gray
and drab-colored thinly-bedded sandstones, which in some places attain a
considerable thickness. Near Egypt, in the Deep River belt, these rocks are
1,200 feet thick. They are poor in fossils, containing only a few fucoids.
This series is much concealed by the soil, and is exposed only to a very
limited extent. The beds contain common salt diffused through them in
small quantities. These rocks form the upper part of Emmons’s Chatham
series, and at Egypt they become red below the upper conglomerate or,
No. 5. The change of color occurs sometimes lower down, and sometimes
higher up. Up to the conglomerate No. 5, Emmons considers that his Per-
mian strata or the Chatham series extend. As to the Permian age of these
beds, I will say that the plants indicate that they are of the same age as the
plant-bearing beds of the Virginia Mesozoic. The rocks overlying the
Chatham series begin with a conglomerate. Emmons considers them to be
of Triassic age.
The so-called Trias of North Carolina has, according to Emmons, the
following order and character in its beds: 1. Conglomerate No. 4, alter-
nating with beds of gray sandstone and blue, non-bituminous slate. The
ageregate thickness on Deep River is about 40 feet. 2. Even-bedded gray
sandstone, which is 300 to 500 feet thick at Haywood and other places in the
Deep River belt. 3. Red, marly sandstone, which in some places is suffi-
ciently hard and durable to make a building stone. It is at least 1,00 feet
thick in the Deep River belt in Orange, Chatham, and Anson Counties.
Towards the top of the series, according to Emmons, conglomerates become
quite general. In Anson County there are heavy conglomerates near the
close of this period.
This is the account given by Emmons of the strata above the upper
donglomerate No. 5. I presume the conglomerates last mentioned are those
to be found on the eastern side of the Deep River belt, and mentioned by
Kerr as being very coarse and unconsolidated, in Wake County. Emmons
states that the horizon yielding plants at Lockville and other points near by
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 101
is at least 2,000 feet above the Coal Measures. He thinks that the upper
group of strata, or that above the conglomerate 5, is unconformable to that
below this conglomerate. He gives the following plants from this upper
group:
AD op othe
. Pecopteris falcatus. Plate 4, figs. 5, 9.
. P. Carolinensis. Plate 4, figs. 1, 2; fig. 68.
. P. bullatus, Bunbury. Plate 6, fig. 8.
. Acrostichites oblongus. Plate 4, figs. 6, 8.
. Teniopteris magnifolia, Rogers. Vig. 70.
Neuropteris spec.? Fig. 71.
. NV. linneefolia, Bunbury. Plate 6, fig. 6.
. Cyclopteris obscurus. Plate 4, fig. 10.
. Odontopteris tenifolius (tenuifolius?). Plate 3, fig. 5.
. Walchia diffusus. Plate 3, fig. 2.
Pr
. W. longifolius. Figs. 72,75; plate 4a.
. W. brevifolia. Fig. 74.
. W. gracile. Fig. 75.
. W. variabilis. Fig. 76.
5. Equisetum columnare, Brongt. Plate 6, fig. 9.
. Calamites arenaceus, Brongt. Figs. 77,
. CO. disjunctus. Plate 4, fig. 4.
. Pachypteris? Fig. 80.
. Cycadites acutus. Fig. 81.
. OC. longifolius. Fig. 82.
. Podozamites lanceolatus, Emmons. Plate 3, fig. 7.
. P. longifolius. Fig. 83.
. Pterozamites decussatus. Plate 3, fig. 1.
. P. pectinatus. Fig. 84.
. P. obtusifolius (Zamites obtusifolius Rogers). Fig. 85.
. P. gracilis. Fig. 86.
. P. obtusus. Fig. 86a.
. P. linearis. Fig. 87.
. P. spatulatus. Fig. 88.
. Dionites linearis. Plate 4, fig. 11.
. Strangerites obliquus. Fig. 89.
. S. planus. Fig. 90.
. Pterophyllum robustum. Figs. 91, 92.
. Trunk of acyead. Fig. 92a.
. Lepidodendron. Figs. 93, 94.
. Albertia latifolia. Fig. 95.
. Neggerathia striata. Fig. 96. =
. Lepacyclotes ellipticus. Fig. 98; plate 3, fig. 6.
. L.circularis. Plate 3, fig. 4.
. Sphenoglossum spec.? Plate 5, fig. 2.
102 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Besides these he gives some fragments, which, as they do not appear to
have any definite character, I omit in this list.
Pecopteris falcatus.
Plate XLVIII, Figs. 6, 7.
Emmons’s “Am. Geol.”, plate 4, figs. 5,9, p. 100.
‘Frond large, pinnate or bipinnate; secondary rachis smooth, channeled, leatlets
long, rather distant than approximate, obtuse, falciform, and slightly prostrated at
base, and adherent to the whole midrib; midrib distant (distinct?) to the apex; side
veins go off at an acute angle, and fork once, and also twice; sori round and in two
rows, with from 12 to17 in arow. The standing of the leaves varies as to closeness.
Uccurs at Ellington’s, 4 miles from Lockville. Fig. 5 seems to be closely allied to P.
faleatus. It may be a barren frond. It might be denominated P. falcatus var.
variabilis.”
It is quite clear, I think, that the pinna depicted in Emmons’s plate 4,
fig. 5, is the sterile form of the plant whose fertile form is given in plate 4,
fig. 9. The plant is probably a Laccopteris, and is near to Laccopteris
Miinsteri, Schenk, from the Rheetic of Europe, although it seems to be spe-
cifically distinct. It might properly be called Laccopteris Emmonsi.
Pecopteris Carolinensis.
Plate XLIX, Figs. 11,12.
Emmons’s ‘Am. Geol.”, fig. 68, and plate 4, figs. 1,2, p. 100.
“Frond, large pinnate; leaflets long, tapering beyond their middle, subacute, close,
apices only seem to be free, slightly dilated at base; side veins going off at ap acute
angle, dividing once or twice. Fructification spots arranged singly and in a row on
each side of the midrib, large, round, scolloped, radiate and elevated in the middle.
Fig. 68 represents a leaflet enlarged. The leaflets of this fern are more than an inch
long, thin and delicate, and they taper from near the middle to an obtuse poiut. Frag-
ments only of this large fern have been found, some of which are 6 or 7 inches long.
It might be mistaken for the preceding, the sori, however, are unlike it. Occurs at
Ellington’s.”
I cannot understand why Dr. Emmons contented himself with giving
only a single enlarged pinnule of this plant for the sterile form, and a small
fragment of a fertile pinnule, when he had fragments 6 to 7 inches long.
It is of course impossible with these figures to get any idea of the facies of
the plant. It is clearly a Laccopteris, and most probably is identical with
Laccopteris elegans, Presl. If not, it should be called Laccopteris Carolinensis.
Pecopteris bullata, Bunbury. p. 101.
Dr. Emmons copies Bunbury’s figures, and gives his description of the
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 103
plant, and refers it for its locality to the Richmond Coal Basin. He does
not state whether it occurs in the North Carolina Mesozoic or not. We are
thus left in doubt, as he may have merely given the description and figure
for the sake of comparison and information. I shall hence include this
plant in the North Carolina field doubtfully.
Arcostichites oblongus.
Plate XLIX, Fig. 1.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”, plate 4, figs. 6,8, p. 101.
‘‘ Frond bipinnate ; primary pinne going off at nearly right angles, prolonged and
tapering ; leaflets oblong, obtuse, close placed, and adherent by their whole base, which
is slightly dilated; midribs rather faint, especially near the apex; side veins make
rather an acute angle, anastomosing, but frequently fork towards the margin; primary
rachis thick and straight.”
Dr. Emmons seems to think that this plant may have been mistaken
for Peccpteris Whitbiensis, though it is not clear why. He points out the
differences, which are of course obvious. It is much like Lonchopteris
Virgimensis in the general facies and shape of the pinnules, while the ner-
vation is rather more lax in the central part of the pinnule, as given in Fig.
la. On account of the differences in the nervation, I hesitate to unite it
with Lonchopteris Virginiensis, and suggest that it retain the specific name
oblongus, whence the entire name would be Lonchopteris oblongus. It occurs
at Ellington’s.
Teniopteris magnifolia, Rogers.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”, p. 102.
Dr. Emmons gives a figure of a fragment of this plant, which is the
Macroteniopteris magnifolia so common in the Richmond Coal Field. He
says: “This plant is often, if not always, divided into segments down to
the midrib as represented in the figure. Whether it is the result of accident,
age, or is a part of its natural character, is not determined.”
If this is a constant feature, as Dr. Emmons says it is, it could
hardly be the result of accident. Jit the hundreds of specimens of this
plant which have passed under my eye in the Virginia Mesozoic, though
many of them were split and lacerated, yet this injury was never of a
character to suggest that it was anything but the result of accident,
and there was never the least regularity about it. The constant recur-
rence of the péculiar segmentation mentioned by Dr. Emmons strongly
104 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
suggests the idea that the plant is not Macroteniopteris (Tcniopteris)
magnifolia, but rather a large Nilssonia or a Pterozamites like Pterozamites
Blasii, Schimp., Pterophyllum Blasti, Schenk. I omit. Emmons’s figure, as it
does not show anything definite.
Emmons gives in fig. 69, a frond which in outline exactly resembles
the reduced form of Macrotceniopteris magnifolia given by Rogers in the
“Trans. of the Am. Ass. of Geol.,” &c., but the nervation is very different
from that of Macroteniopteris magnifolia. He says nothing about the figure,
and hence I am ata loss to know its meaning. If it represents a plant
found in the North Carolina Mesozoic, it is a new species. Locality not
given.
Neuropteris. spec?
Plate XLIX, Fig. 2.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”, fig. 71, p. 102.
“Frond large, bipinnate, secondary, as well as main rachis, thick and strong;
leaflets obtuse. oblong, contiguous or adhesive by the whole base. This fern occurs
at Ellington’s. It is a very large plant, with a strong rachis. The side veins numer-
ous, forked once or twice; it has no midrib towards the apex, or it vanishes about
one-third its distance from the point.”
This plant, I think, can hardly be separated from Asterocarpus platyrachis
of the Virginia Mesozoic. It corresponds to the sterile form.
Neuropteris linnezfolia. Bunbury. p. 104.
Emmons merely copies a part of Bunbury’s figure, and does not say
that the plant occurs in the North Carolina Mesozoic, though it is to be
presumed that it does.
Cyclopteris obscurus.
Plate XLIX, Fig. 5.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”’, plate 4, fig. 10, p. 104.
“Frond suborbicular, sessile, veins numerous, three or four times divided, flexuous
and radiate from the base. This Cyclopteris is imperfect, but there can be no doubt
of its belonging to this genus. There are round dots like sori between the veins, but
obscure, it may be by age. It occurs sparingly at Ellington’s, and a smaller but dif-
ferent species occurs also at Lockville.”
This plant is clearly a Sagenopteris. The figure represents two leaflets,
partly preserved; the fragment on the left partly overlaps that on the right.
It is much like the plant from the Richmond Coal Field, and there can be
hardly a doubt that both are the very polymorphous Rheetic form Sagenop-
teris rhoifolia.
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 105
Undetermined Fern.
Plate LIV, Fig. 9.
On plate 4, fig. 3, of his work, Emmons gives a figure of a plant which
he does not determine, and of which he says:
“On plate 4, fig. 3, I have introduced the figure of the apex of a frond which is
not well defined, and hence it is uncertain to which genus of ferns it should be
referred, provided it be a fern. No secondary veins can be seen, the midrib is plain,
and the leaflets taper from the base to a point, and become decurrent upon the
rachis.”
This plant is precisely like the figure given by Schenk in his ‘Foss.
?
Flor. der Grenzsch ,” plate viii, fig. 2, of Asplenites Résserti, var., and it is
probably the same plant.
Undetermined Fern.
Plate LI, Fig. 6.
On plate 6, fig. 2, of the “Am. Geol.”, Emmons gives a figure of a plant
which he does not determine, but of which he says:
“This is probably a Pecopteris, as its middle vein reaches the apex, and has forked
side veins; but its characters are upon the whole too indistinct to be determined with
certainty.”
This is evidently a fragment of a young plant of a Laccopteris very
close te, if not identical with, Laccopteris elegans. It much resembles fig.
2 plate xl, of Schimper’s “Pal. Vég.,” which represents the young sterile
plant of L. elegans. 1 do not see how it can be separated from that plant.
Odontopteris tenifolius (tenuifolius ?).
Plate XLIX, Fig. 7.
Emmons’s “Am, Geol.”, plate 3, fig. 5, p. 105.
“Frond bipivnate, or pinnate-pinnatifid, leaflets membranaceous, adhering by the
whole base, nerves springing from the secondary rachis in more than one set, branch-
ing forked. Found at Ellington’s in the blue slate, but more rare at Haywood in the
reddish marly slate. At the last locality the obscurity of the imprint creates consid-
erable doubt respecting its characteristics. The imprints are numerous at this place,
and the geological position far above that at Ellington’s.”
Immons gives, in plate 3, fig 5, ‘Am. Geol.,” the figure of a rather
large plant, much resembling an Odontopteris. This, as seen in our Plate
XLIX, Fig. 7, has no midrib or lateral veins given in the pinnules, but
from the description of them the plant must be an Acrostichides, and it is
probably identical with Acrostichides rhombifolius from the Virginia Mesozoic.
106 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Emmons’s figure much resembles some portions of the upper part of A.
rhombifolius. On plate 6, fig. 1, “Am. Geol.,” he gives a figure of a much
smaller plant, which, although similar to an Odontopteris in facies, is prob-
ably a different species from that described above. - This latter specimen,
reproduced in our Fig. 9, Plate XLIX, is a good deal like some of the
upper lobed pinnze of Acrostichides rhombifolius, but it is more like Sphenop-
teris Rossertiana, Presl, from the Rhetic of Europe. It is much like
Sphenopteris obtusiloba, Andre, from the Lias of Steierdorf, which Schimper
makes a Cladophlebis. These plants may prove to be Acrostichides, when
their fructification is found. In the mean time, as it is probable that the
North Carolina plant is not a Sphenopteris, it should be made a Cladophlebis
If identified with the Liassic plant, as it probably should be, it ought to be
called Cladophlebis obtusiloba.
It is to be noted that the horizon of this and the preceding plant is not
the same. The blue slate alternates with the conglomerate, the basal rock
of the upper series, and the reddish marly slate begins from 300 to 500 feet
higher. It is much to be regretted that Emmons does not state which
plant occurs at the lower, and which at the higher horizon. Probably it is
the smaller plant, from its Liassic affinities, that occurs at the higher
horizon.
Walchia diffusus.
Plate LI, Fig. 4.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol,”, plate 3, fig. 2, p. 195.
“Frond and branches thickly covered with small leaves, clasping at base, largest
upon the main stem; branches numerous, irregularly placed, often elongated and very
leafy; the leaves rather obtuse, and appear punctate under the microscope. The
species is rather common at Ellington’s.”
Emmons seems not to have paid much attention to the structure of the
leaves of the conifers from the North Carolina Mesozoic, and especially not
to have noted with care their nervation, as in this case. Hence one cannot
come to any very satisfactory conclusion concerning their true nature. In
some of the leaves of this plant he has formed in the figure a midrib.
If this be present, then the plant is a Palissya, as is indicated by the
general facies. It is strikingly like Palissya conferta, Feist. Compare fig.
5, plate xlv, ‘Pal. Indica,” series ii, 7. ‘Foss. Flor. of the Rajmahal
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 107
Group.” The Palissya conferta is from the Rajmahal Group of India, which
Feistmantel thinks is of Liassic age, but which contains so many Rheetic
species that it appears to me to be of Rheetic age. At any rate the North
Carolina plant does not seem to be a Walchia, and so long as it is not more
precisely known, it is perhaps better to consider it as a distinct species
which may bear the name Palissya diffusa.
Walchia longifolius.
Plate L, Figs. 1, 2; Plate LI, Fig. 1.
Emmons’s ‘Am. Geol.”, Figs. 72,73; Pl. 4a, pp. 105, 106.
“Plant shrub-like, or large and branching, stems striate, often nearly naked,
the smaller leafy; leaves long, acute, keeled, clasping, and tapering from near the
base, slightly decurrent. Fig. 72 shows the leafy branches. * * * Sometimes the
branches appear to become naked, as in Fig. 73, and the termination appears of the
form represented, as if it bore a cone more elongate than that of the Voltzia. This
club moss is common at Lockville.”
The above is the account given by Emmons of this plant, which is
plainly a Palissya, and identical with the common Palissya of the Rheetic
of Europe, viz., Palissya Braunii, Endl. This plant from North Carolina
is precisely like the plant from India, from the Rajmahal Group, which
Feistmantel calls Palissya Indica, and considers as a new species, though
very near to P. Braunii. It seems to me that the differences are too slight
to separate the India plant from Palissya Braunii, and that it is merely a
slightly different form.
Emmons states that the leaves are keeled, that is, with one rib, but
does not represent the rib or keel in the figures. This is an illustration of
what was stated above of his neglect of the nervation of the leaves in his
figures. He represents in his fig. 72, Pl. LI, fig. 1, of this work, three
leafy branches of the plant as going off from a stout stem, but says that
they were not actually seen attached to a stem. I have omitted the sup-
posed main stem, and reproduce only the three branches, as these were
all that were actually seen. The club-shaped mass at the summit of fig,
2, resembles strongly the cone of Palissya.
Walchia brevifolia.
Plate LIII, Fig. 3.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”, fig. 74, p. 107.
* Plant slender, elongated, branching, leafy; leaves rather short, lanceolate, acute,
tapering towards the base. This plant has some resemblance to Walchia hypnoides of
108 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
the Carboniferous system. Its leaves are scareely larger, and are nearly of the same
form. It occurs at Lockville. Some species (specimens ?) are 6 or 7 inches long, and
appear as if the plant was. procumbent.”
It will be seen from this account that no definite information is given
concerning the nervation and structure of the leaves. The plant appears
to be a Cheirolepis, and may be a new species. It is, however, very near
to the more slender forms of Cheirolepis Miinsteri, Schimper, the forms that
Schenk called Brachyphyllum Miinsteri. I have but little doubt that it is
identical with this plant.
Walchia ‘gracile.
Plate L, Fig. 3.,
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.”, fig. 75, p. 108.
“Stem procumbent, small, slender; leaves alternate, rather spatulate, and obtuse.
This is a very small plant, and it is uncertain whether it should be regarded as a
Walchia or not. The figure is twice the natural size. It belongs to the gray sand-
stone, 300 to 500 feet above the blue slate at Ellington’s.”
This appears to me to be merely a slender specimen of the above-
described plant, viz., Cheirolepis Miinsteri. The figure is twice enlarged.
Walchia variabilis.
Plate L, Fig. 4.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 76, p. 108.
“Leaves lanceolate, acute, rather wide, grasping, decurrent. The leaves stand
thickly upon the stem, but on different ones their width as well as length is variable,
which may be due to compression, or the direction in which they have been compressed.
The widest part of the leaf is about one-fourth of an inch from its apex, and its length
from the base, in some of the leaves, is about half an inch. It has a resemblance to
Uncifolius, but the leaves do not vary in size, as in the Williamsonis, neither are they
hooked at their apices or unciform. The leaves when pressed laterally appear much
narrower than when spread out naturally. It occurs at Turner’s Falls, in the brown-
ish flags, at least 500 feet above the second conglomerate.”
There seems to be hardly a doubt that this plant is Pachyphyllum pere-
grinum (Lindl. and Hutt.), Schimper. Emmons says nothing about the
texture of the leaves, but his figure indicates on some of them a sort of keel.
Pachyphyllum peregrinum comes from the lower Lias of England, and is the
Araucaria peregrina of Lindley and Hutton, depicted in the ‘ Fossil Flora
of Great Britain,” plate Ixxxviii. This plant from North Carolina comes,
according to Emmons, as stated above, 500 feet above the horizon of the
most common ecycads of the North Carolina Mesozoie.
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 109
Equisetum columnare.
“ This plant occurs in the Deep River formation, in obscurely marked specimens, in
the thin-bedded gray sandstones at Ellington’s, considerably above the blue slate.”
This plant seems to be the same with Equisetum Rogersi, from the
Virginia Mesozoic, and as it is a poor specimen and does not show any new
features, I have not reproduced Emmons’s figure.
° Calamites arenaceus.
Emmons gives two figures, 77 and 78, of this fossil. As they represent
the internal casts of EH. Rogersi and show nothing new, I do not reproduce
the figures. Emmons states that one specimen from the base of the stem
was 4 inches in diameter.
» Calamites disjunctus.
Emmons gives a figure of this internal cast on plate 4, fig. 4. It shows
no characters that suffice to distinguish it as a new species, but may belong to
Rogers’s Calamites planicostatus, which appears to be a cast of a Schizoneura.
Echinocarpus.
Emmons gives a figure of a woody branching stem apparently, which
he thinks is a dry seed vessel. It is merely a nondescript branching frag-
ment, which has no characters that appear to be significant of anything but
a branching stem.
Pachypteris.
Plate LI, Fig. 5. -
Emmons’s “ Amer. Geol.,” p. 112, fig. 80.
“Frond scarcely pinnate, leaves coriaceous, one-nerved, diminishing in width
towards the base; long, oval, obtuse. The stem is strong, and the leaves should be
regarded, perhaps, as alternating with one another. No side veins are discoverable,
and the preserved leaflets appear distinctly coriaceous, with a single midrib.”
The locality and horizon of this plant are not given. It is evidently not
a Pachypteris, but is a conifer. It is apparently a Palissya with an un-
usually strong midrib. The remoteness of the leaves is no doubt due to
the fact that many of them have been removed by the accidents that have
befallen the specimen. It might bear the name Palissya Carolinensis.
Cycadites acutus.
Plate LI, Fig. 3.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Amer. Geol.,” p. 114, fig. 81.
“ Petiole strong, striate; leaves thick, narrow, rigid, acute, margius either revo-
lute or thickened. This plant has leaves about 2 inches long, which spread nearly at
right angles to the petiole. It occurs at Lockville, in the blue non-bituminous slate.”
110 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
This plant is clearly a Cycadites, as Emmons has determined it to be.
It resembles very strongly Cycadites Roemeri, Schenk, plate xi, fig. 1, ‘Foss.
Flor. Nordwest. Weald.,” from the Wealden of Germany. It is notewor-
thy that many of the plants from these upper strata strikingly resemble
Wealden forms. Among those already mentioned, we have the following
plants comparable to Wealden forms: Cyclopteris oBscurus is not unlike
Sagenopteris Mantelli, Schenk., ‘Foss. Flor. der Nord. Weald,” plate x, fig.
5, while Walchia brevifolius may be compared with Sphenolepis Kurriana,
and Walchia gracile with Sphenolepis Sternbergiana, Schenk, from the same
formation. These resemblances, with others yet to be noted, are the more
worthy of notice as I have found many Wealden plants among the upper-
most beds of the border belts of the Mesozoic in Virginia. This Cycadites
is very near te, if not identical with, Cycadites Blanfordianus, Old. & Mor.,
‘Pal. Indica,” series ii, plate ix, fig. 2. It may also be compared with
Cycadites longifolius, Nath., ‘Bidrag till Sveriges Foss. Flora,” plate xiii,
figs. 1-3, from the Rheetie of Pilsjé, Sweden.
Cycadites longifolius.
Plate LI, Fig. 7.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Amer. Geol.,” p. 115, fig. 82.
“Stem, or petiole, channeled; leaves opposite, thick, acute; margins thickened,
and leaves standing at an acute angle with the petiole. This has a wider leaf than
the former, and was probably a larger plant. The frond was probably 14 or 15 inches
long, and the leaves 3 inches long. The specimen adheres to the rock by the back of
the frond, and hence the midrib is indicated in this case only by a longitudinal chan-
nel. No side veins can be seen. The figure fails to represent the midrib. Occurs at
Lockville.”
Owing to the omission of the midrib in the leaflets, the facies of this
plant is of course disguised. This is another of the cases where it is very
desirable to see the original of the figure, in order to make out the true na-
ture of the specimen, since Emmons’s figure fails to give the true character.
Podozamites lanceolatus.
Plate LIII, Fig. 2.
Emmons’s ‘‘Amer, Geol.,” p. 116, plate 3, fig. 7.
“Stem, or midrib, strong, striate; leaves nearly opposite; lanceolate; nerves
very distinct, and convergent to the apex. The detached leaves are very numerous in
the slates at Ellingtons, and some are half an inch wide.”
~ MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. tel
This plant is a true Podozamites, but not the P. lanceolatus of European
authors. Hence, as this name is preoccupied, another must be chosen. It
might be called Podozamites Emmonsi.
Podozamites longifolius.
Plate LIII, Fig. 5.
Emmons’s “Am. Geol.,” p. 116, fig. 83.
‘Leaves linear-lanceolate, constricted immediately at the base, nerves fine, con-
vergent. The Podozamites lanceolatus and the P. longifolius difter. In the latter the
perves are much finer, and the leaves narrower in proportion to their length, and less
constricted at base, and hence it is possible that it should be transferred to another
genus. The frond is 7 inches wide, and was probably 2 feet long. The portion of the
frond obtained was about 9 inches long. Its leaf was thinner than the Cycadites
longifolius.”
This plant is evidently not a Podozamites, and to judge from the ficure
the leaflets were not constricted at base, or but slightly so on the upper
side, while they are decurrent on the lower side. The nerves do not appear
to be convergent. It seems to be a Dioonites, and is much like Dioonites
Humboldtianus (Pterophyllum Humboldtianum, Dunker) from the Wealden of
Germany, which Schimper makes a Dioonites. The midrib, however, of the
North Carolina plant is much smaller, and the leaflets wider than the cor-
responding parts of, the Wealden fossil. It is probably nearly allied to the
plant from the Rajmahal Group of India, figured on plate xli, figs. 1 and 2,
“Pal. Indica,” series ii, 7, which Feistmantel calls Zamites proximus. It
closely resembles this plant, but the leaflets are wider and the midrib
stouter. The Zamites proximus seems to be a true Dioonites.
Pterozamites decussatus.
Plate LI, Fig. 2.
Emmons’s ‘*Am. Geol.,” p. 117, plate 3, fig. 1.
“Frond pinnate; petiole strong, striate; leaves long, obtuse, many nerved, and
standing at right angles with the petiole, and rather wide. It occurs at Ellington’s in
the blue slate.”
This plant is evidently a Pterophyllum of the type of Pterophyllum
Jageri. It seems to be closely allied to Pterophyllum cquale, Nathorst,
from the Rheetic of Sweden. Compare figs. 6, 8, 10, plate xv, ‘Floran vid
Bjuf.” The tips of the leaflets do not seem to be preserved in the speci-
men figured by Emmons. It may be called Pterophyllum decussatum.
Ln THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Pterozamites pectinatus.
Plate LIII, Fig. 4.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 117, fig. 84.
“Leaves narrow, many nerved, and standing at right angles to the strong mid-
rib. Occurs at Lockville in the blue slate.” :
This plant bears a strong resemblance to Pterophyllum Lyellianum
Dunker, from the Wealden of Germany; at least it resembles the forms of
that plant with narrow leaflets. Compare Schenk, ‘Foss. Flor. der Nord.
Weald.,” plate xiii, fig. 1, and Dunker, “‘ Monographie der Nord. Weald.,”
plate vi, figs. 1, 2. It-is, however, apparently a new species, and may be
called Pterophyllum pectinatum, for it is clearly a true Pterophyllum.
¢ Pterozamites obtusifolius (Zamites obtusifolius Rogers.)
Plate LIV, Fig. 4.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” p. 118, fig. 85,
“Midrib straight, tapering to the end of the pinna, striate; leaflets attached by
their whole base, and nearly in contact, and standing upon the stem at angle of about
80°. Pinnules have from 3 to 6 parallel veins.” .
Emmons goes on to say of this plant:
“‘T have observed many specimens at Haywood which agree in size and other char-
acters with the foregoing. Generally the apex of the leaflet is rounded off in the same
manner, but in some specimens it is more tapering, and may appear more acute. In
others still, which perhaps should be referred to this species, the leaflet is about one-
tenth of an inch wide, and preserves this width to near the apex, and the leaves are
also shorter. Fig. 85 [Plate LIV, Fig. 4, of this work] is an example of a common
form. The figure is taken from the middle of a frond.”
He seems to be uncertain whether to refer the plant to Rogers’s Zam-
ites obtusifolius or not, stating that they frequently appear to run into each
other.
The plant in question is clearly the var. 4, or the form with short leaf-
lets of Ctenophyllum Braunianum Goepp., from the Rhetic of Franconia.
Compare figs. 1, 2, plate xxxviii, Schenk, ‘‘Foss. Flor. der Grenszchichten.”
Emmons does not give the exact horizon at Haywood on which the plant
is found. From his remarks it would appear that the fossil is abundant.
We thus have in North Carolina and in Virginia both varieties, and in
abundance, of this plant which is so highly characteristic of the Rhetic
formation.
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 113
Pterozamites gracilis.
Plate LIV, Fig. 5.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 118, fig. 86.
“Frond tapering very gradually to the apex, leaflets oblique to the midrib, linear
rounded, and obtuse at their extremities. The frond is about 5 inches long, and in
this, as In most of the species, they [the leaflets?] stand nearly opposite to each other.
This plant resembles Zamia taxina, but is more delicate.”
It is clearly only a smaller form of the preceding or Ctenophyllum
Braunianum var. £. No locality and no horizon are given for it by
Emmons, but it is to be presumed that it occurs with the preceding plant.
Pterozamites obtusus.
Plate LIV, Fig. 1.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 119, fig. 86a.
“Frond very obtuse; stem slender; leaflets distinctly nerved, and rather nar-
rowed towards the base. The leaf has about 16 or 17 nerves, and they preserve these
[their?] lengths to the apex of the stem, which gives it an obtuse or broad termina-
tion. It occurs at House’s Quarry.”
This plant is a Ctenophyllum of the type of Ctenophyllum imbricatum
(Ett.) Schimp. from the Lias of Steierdorf, Banat. It is, however, a larger
plant, and is most, probably a new species. I would have no hesitation in
uniting it with the Pterophyllum robustum of Emmons, to be described
presently, but for the notable difference in the number of nerves in the
leaflets, 16 or 17 in this plant, against 8 or 9 in the case of the P. robustum.
It is possible that Emmons may have mistaken the number of nerves in
the latter, for sometimes, in certain modes of preservation of the leaflets,
and perhaps in their original form, nerves which normally appear distinct
are consolidated so as to give a number of strong nerves equal to half the
number of the normal finer nerves. This would seem to be the explana-
tion of the variable number of nerves seen in Ctenophyllum Braunianum,
viz., 6 or 7 fine nerves, and sometimes only 3 strong ones. As we cannot
be certain about the nerves of this plant, it will be best to retain it as a
distinct species, with the name Ctenophyllum Emmonsi.
8F
114 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Pterozamites linearis.
Plate LIV, Fig. 2.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 120, fig. 87.
‘Frond linear and narrow; leaflets very narrow and delicate; midrib slender.
It occurs in the soft drab-colored slate at House’s Quarry, Haw River.”
This plant is clearly a Ctenophyllum. It is possible that it may be a
small form of the very variable Ctenophyllum Braunianum, but it seems to be
a new species. It might be called Ctenophyllum lineare.
Pterozamites spatulatus.
Plate LIII, Fig. 6.
Emmons’s “‘Am. Geol.,” p. 120, fig. 88.
“‘Midrib delicate, punctate or transversely striate, leaflets long, spatulate, or nar-
rowing towards the base, but attached by their whole width. The termination of the
leaflets is rounded, and they are widest near the middle or a little beyond it. It
occurs at House’s Quarry, on the Haw River.”
The only plant known to me with which this may be compared is the
Pterophyllum Andreanum, Schimper, Pterophyllum longifolium, Andrae, from
the Lias of Steierdorf, Banat. But this latter plant has wider leaflets that
are joined at the base. Still, Andrae’s figure 1, plate x, of the “Foss. Flor.
Sieb. und des Banates,” shows that some of the leaflets of the Steierdorf
plant are not wider than those of the North Carolina species. The Steier-
dorf fossil in this irregularity of the width of the leaflets on the same
midrib resembles the Virginia Pterophyllum inequale. 'The Steierdorf plant
has the same narrowing of the leaflets towards the lower part that we find
in the North Carolina plant. Taking these three forms together, viz.,
Pterophyllum Andreanum, P. inequale, and the present plant, P. spatulatum,
we have a complete transition from one form to the other, and, assuming
that the North Carolina and Virginia fossils form the extremes, the Steier-
dorf plant is the intermediate form. The plant in question is clearly a
Pterophyllum, and may be called P. spatulatum.
Dionites linearis (Zamites graminoides).
Plate XLIX, Fig. 6.
Emmons’s ‘Am. Geol.,” p. 121, plate 4, fig. 11.
“Frond narrow, pinnate, elongate; midrib slender, striate; leaves long, narrow
grass-like, tapering from near the middle to a point, and forming an acute angle with
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. LS
the midrib. This plant differs from the Zamites graminoides of Professor Bunbury
in the length and width of the leaves, being shorter and not as wide. The longest are
about 14 inches long, and have about 6 delicate nerves. The leaves are rather less
than one-tenth of an inch wide.”
Emmons does not give the locality and horizon of this plant. I do not
understand the dimensions given. The longest leaflets of the figure are 14
inches (= 3 centimeters) long, and it is plain that these are mere fragments
of leaflets. However, the length would depend upon the part of the leaf
which yielded the specimen. The Zamites graminoides of Bunbury above
referred to is probably Zamites gramineus, which Bunbury, in his paper on
the fossil plants from Eastern Virginia, doubtfully considers a new species,
being not sure that it is different from Rogers’s Zamites obtusifolius. From
Bunbury’s description of Z. gramineus, it differs from Rogers’s plant only in
having the leaves longer and more slender. There is no doubt that the
plant in question from North Carolina, and those of Bunbury and Rogers,
are parts of the polymorphous Ctenophyllum Braunianum, var. a. The
North Carolina specimen seems to be from the upper part of the plant, and
hence the obliquity of the insertion of the leaflets.
Strangerites obliquus.
Plate LIV, Fig. 8.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” p. 121, fig. 89.
“Frond robust, nerves or side veins very numerous, and go off at an acute
angle, and soon form an obtuse one with it, dividing once or twice, once near the mid-
rib and again near the margin. The average breadth of the frond is three-fourths of
an inch, and its margin is undulating.”
The figure plainly shows that the margin is not preserved, the undu-
lation being due to the peculiar mode of laceration. The singular nerves,
some of which stop short in the leaf before reaching the margin, attain this
appearance, no doubt, from the fact that Emmons studied the nervation
only in a single imperfect specimen. The figures of a good many of Em-
mons’s plants seem to show that the nervation and other minuter details
were obtained from single specimens, of which, apparently, fac-similes were
given, imperfections and all. The nerves of this plant in many cases, if
continued in the course they pursued when they suddenly stopped short,
would anastomose with their neighbors. This fact, with the open character
116 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
of the lateral nerves, and the broad, flat midrib, make it clear, I think, that
the plant is the same with Pseudodancopsis nervosa, from the Virginia
Mesozoic.
Strangerites planus.
Plate LIV, Fig. 3.
Emmons’s “Am. Geol.,” p. 122, fig. 90.
‘Frond even, smooth; midrib narrow and gently tapering to a point; side veins
dividing once, twice, and even three times. This species differs from the former in
being much longer and having a thinner midrib. Its leaf is also thinner and more
delicate, with a very uniform and even margin. Both species are found in the blue
slate at Ellington’s, above a thick bed of conglomerate.”
Here again the nerves are made to stop short within the leaf, without
attaining the margin, when by continuing them they would anastomose
with their neighbors. From the narrow pinnules, the sharply-defined mid-
rib, and the fine nervation, it is clear that this is Pseudodaneopsis reticulata.
Pterophyllum robustum.
Plate LIV, Fig. 7.
Emmons’s “Am, Geol.,” p. 122, fig. 91.
‘‘ Midrib thick and stout, striate; leaflets short, linear, imbricate; side veins distinct
(and parallel). The leaflets preserve a uniform width to the end, and terminate bluntly;
they have 8 to 9 veins each. This Pterophyllum occurs in a drab-colored sandstone,
300 to 400 feet above the blue shale at Ellington’s, and immediately above a gray con-
glomerate, and 50 to 100 feet above this the red marly sandstone occurs.”
This appears to be a well-defined new species of Ctenophyllum of the
type of Ctenophyllum imbricatum. But for the less number of nerves I should
think it identical with Ctenophyllum Emmonsi, previously mentioned. Ac-
cording to Professor Lesquereux, this plant occurs in the Mesozoic of Penn-
sylvania, at Phcenixville.
Pterophyllum robustum, var.?
Plate LIV, Fig. 6.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 123, fig. 92.
“Midrib rather thin and slender; leaflets short, about 8 ribbed or nerved; leaf
rather thin and not imbricated. It appears to be the termination of the frond of P.
robustum. This occurs with the preceding.”
It is clearly the termination of the leaf of the preceding plant.
‘\
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 11%
Trunk of cycad.
Plate LII, Fig. 5.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” p. 123, fig. 92a.
“The sears of the fallen leaves are rhomboidal, and the center of each has a
thomboidal pit. There is a tendency to striation immediately upon the border of each
scar.”
This is apparently a Zamiostrobus, and not the trunk of a cyead. It
might be called Zamiostrobus Emmonsi. Emmons says that he found in the
same bed cylindrical casts with a rough exterior, but no distinct marks of
fallen leaves, which were no doubt casts of the trunks of cyeads. He does
not give the locality and horizon of these impressions.
Lepidodendron.
Plate LIV, Fig. 10.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” p. 124, fig. 93.
“The cast of trunks bearing the external markings of this singular vegetable are
by no means common, but many smooth and rather striate stems, 7 to 8 inches in
diameter, are very common at House’s Quarry, on Haw River. In one instance I
obtained a branch marked and scarred as in figure 94. Fig. 93 (Fig. 10 of this work)
was taken from the cast of a stem imbedded in the conglomerate of Lockville. The
stem was 6 or 8 inches long, and had a small branch proceeding from it.”
I omit Fig. 94, as it is too vague to show anything of the true nature
of the impression, which was evidently a Zamiostrobus, and possibly the
same with Z. Emmonsi. Emmons’s fig. 93 (Fig. 10 of this work) might
represent a new species of Zamiostrobus but for the great length mentioned
above by Emmons, viz., 6 or 7 inches.
These impressions are of course not those of Lepidodendron, as this
plant does not exist in the Mesozoic.
Albertia latifolia.
Plate LII, Fig. 6.
Emmons’s “Am. Geol.,” p. 126, fig. 95
“The leaves are thin and broad, scarcely striate, ovate, or obovate, and sub-
spatulate or narrowed at the base and apparently slightly decurrent. Separate leaves
of this plant are not uncommon in the beds at Lockville. The leaves are pressed
obliquely sometimes, and hence true forms may not be accurately preserved. Occurs
in the blue sandy slate or shale at Lockville.”
118 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
IT think there can be little doubt but that this plant is an Otozamites of
the type of Otozamites Beanii, Schimper (Cyclopteris Beanii Lindl. and Hut.),
from the Odlite of England. This plant may be compared with the nar-
rower leaflets of the English fossil, those coming from the upper part. It
is, however, a new species if it be an Otozamites. It would require an
examination of the original specimen to decide this point. The plant fig-
ured by Emmons is evidently fragmentary and the leaves a good deal dis-
torted, as he suggests. The left-hand lower leaf, only partially preserved,
must originally have been in shape and size near the larger leaflets of Oto-
zamites Beanii, and have overlapped in part the leaflet above. Though the
character of the plant is not clearly disclosed by the figure, it would appear
that it cannot be an Albertia. 'The nerves, as drawn in the figure of Em-
mons, are represented as forking near the margin of the leaflets in a manner
similar to that seen in the nervation of the leaflets of Otozamites. It may
be called Otozamites Carolinensis
Neeggerathia striata.
Plate LIII, Fig. 1.
Emmons’s ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” p. 127, fig. 96.
“The leaves are coarsely striate. It occurs in a light-greenish shale, about 5
miles north from Haywood. It is very nearly upon the parallel (horizon?) with the
beds upon Haw River, which furnish so many Cycads and Calamites.”
This is clearly the basal portion of Baiera multifida.
Emmons gives in fig. 97 a nondescript plant which he calls Comephyl-
lum cristatum. As it does not show any characters that throw light upon
the nature of the plant I omit it.
Lepacyclotes ellipticus.
Plate LII, Fig. 4.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 129, fig. 98.
“Disk elliptical, scales attached to an elliptical nucleus; disk supported by, or
attached to, a stem which passes through the middle in the direction of its long axis.
The number of scales in the disk is from 20 to 24. The stem is not always visible.”
This plant is evidently a cone of a conifer near to Araucaria. Indeed
the resemblance is so great that it may well be.a true Araucaria. The
supposed stem appears to me to be accidentally present. The figure rep-
MESOZOIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 119
resents the base of the cone as it would appear when mashed flat in the
direction of its longer axis. Fig. 4a represents two scales of the cone now
in question.
Lepacyclotes circularis.
Plate XLIX, Fig. 8.
Emmons’s ‘“‘Am. Geol.,”’ p. 130, plate 3, fig. 4.
“Disk or circle formed of scales as in the preceding, but they appear to radiate
from its center. In this specimen a dark-colored flattish or circular body is connected
to the central termination of the scales, which may have been the fruit or seed. Por-
tions broke from it when detached from the rock, leaving the overlying body as repre-
sented in the figure. Another species occurs in the sandstones above, associated
with Pterophyllums. There are certain facts connected with this plant which are not
rationally explained on the natural supposition that they are analogous to the cones
of pines, for the same species of disks with their scales occur which are less than half
an inch in diameter, and in another instance the disk is formed of three concentric
tiers of scales, the center one similar to the figure given above, but the outer one bor-
dering it, formed of shorter scales. It is 7 inches in diameter, and another formed of
a single row of scales is 5 inches in the longest diameter. They are found at Elling-
ton’s in the soft blue slate above the conglomerate. The detached scales are very
numerous. Only one specimen has been obtained at Lockville.”
I do not see any reason in the above account to deny the coniferous
character of these bodies, but.rather find reasons for assuming that they
are cones. There may be several species, but the L. circularis is clearly
the same with L. ellipticus, the latter being slightly distorted by pressure.
The plant may be called Avaucarites Carolinensis.
Undetermined plant.
Plate LII, Fig. 2.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am., Geol.,” p. 131, fig. 99. na
Fig. 99 of the ‘American Geology” depicts a singular form, of which
Emmons says:
“Tt is the most common plant of the blue shale at Lockville. The stem is flat-
tened, but retains its parallel and obscure striz, which are continued upon the leaves.
The length of the leaf is remarkable, and, considering that they do not diminish in
breadth along the space through which they have been uncovered, they must be from
12 to 18 inches long. Their breadth varies from one to five lines, and they never taper.
Five leaves in one instance proceed from the stem as represented in the figure. The
stem is nearly a line thick, and hence had more substance than the Equisetaceae or
Calamites.”
I have, in the shales of the Clover Hill deposits, often seen obscure
branching forms not unlike the plant depicted here. They were evidently
120 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
succulent, and had the nature of stems, not of leaves. I have considered
them to be rhizomes of some plant which spread and ramified in the soft
mud of the period. This plant of Emmons is evidently stem-like, with
branches. I cannot offer any explanation of its true nature. The Virginia
specimens, the only original ones that I have seen, are even more vague
than Emmons’s plant.
Another peculiar plant is given by Emmons in fig. 100 (Plate LII,
Fig. 1 of this work). He says:
“Tt occurs in the slate at Lockville. It is a simple strap-like leaf, which is finely
striate. The specimen from which the drawing was taken was about 14 inches long,
and broken at bothends. It is smooth, or under the microscope appears finely striate.”
Another plant apparently of the same nature, which, as it appears to
me, has accidentally superposed upon it a fragment of stem, is given by
Emmons in fig. 101. Emmons thinks that the apparent stem is a real one.
Both this and the preceding plant appear to be leaves of a grass-like form,
perhaps of the kind named Bambusium, but without the originals it is im-
possible to come to any definite conclusion about them. For convenience
of reference they may be denominated Bambusium Carolinense. Still
another undetermined plant is given by Emmons in fig. 102 (Plate LI,
Fig. 8 of this work). This, Emmons says, ‘‘resembles Baiera gracilis, or
the plant referred to Baiera doubtingly by Professor Bunbury in the ‘Quar-
terly Journal Geological Society.”
This is clearly a Baiera, much smaller than the Baiera multifida. Ihave
not seen Bunbury’s figure, and hence cannot verify Emmons’s comparison
of it with Bunbury’s plant. The plant now in question is much like Baiera
Miinsteriana, Sap., or Jeanpaulia Miinsteriana, Ung., from the Rheetic of Ger-
many, and is no doubt the same plant. This plant, formerly called Jean- |
paulia, is now considered by Saporta and Heer to be a Baiera.
Sphenoglossum quadrifoliatum.
Plate LII, Fig. 3.
Emmons’s ‘‘Am. Geol.,” p. 134, plate 5, fig. 2.
‘“‘ Leaves short, wedge-formed, or subtriangular, marked with strie radiating from
the center, arranged in twos or fours around the stem or support. The leaves have
divergent margins, and are marked with unequal or divergent lines. Stem quadran-
gular? Many specimens were found in the upper marly sandstone, some single, some
GENERAL REMARKS. 121
in two, and others with three leaves, and the base of the fourth. One of the latter is
therefore restored in the figure. Mr. Lea, of Philadelphia, has a similar plant from
Turner’s Falls, Mass., but this has two opposite leaves only.”
The only fossil plant that I can compare this curious form to is the
Actinopteris peltata of Schenk, “Foss. Flor. der Grenszchichten, &c.,” plate
vi, figs. 3, 4, 5, from the Rheetic of Germany, where it is abundant. Schenk’s
forms appear to be circular, single leaves, though on some of them there
appear faint indications of a segmentation. Schimper says of these im-
pressions that they are not plants, but dendritic infiltrations of hydrated
oxide of iron around bits of carbonized matter. This may be true of the
European impressions, and the explanation may suffice for circular mark-
ings, but it is not easy to see how infiltrations could take the form of reg-
ular wedge-shaped segments, with well-defined margins, as in the North
Carolina markings. Feistmantel, on plate xi, figs. 1, 2, ‘‘ Pal. Indica,”
series xi, 1, “Odlitic Flor. of Kach,” gives figures of forms which closely
resemble the North Carolina specimens, and which are clearly segmented
in a similar manner, but which show five and six wedge-shaped segments.
Feistmantel, with Schimper’s explanations before him, states that he has a
form from the Raniganj Coal Field, which proves that this impression really
belongs to a fern. We may then conclude that the plants in question from
North Carolina are perhaps ferns, and probably of the genus Actinopteris.
They might be called Actinopteris quadrifoliata.
GENERAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS.
I have now given all the significant forms mentioned by Emmons from
the Mesozoic of North Carolina, with his descriptions of them, and with my
conclusions respecting them.
It is not necessary to dwell upon the character of the strata of the two
North Carolina areas. It is evident that they have a close resemblance to
each other and to the Mesozoic beds of Virginia. The physical and strati-
graphical resemblances are sufficient, without the evidence of the plants, to
indicate that the North Carolina and Virginia Mesozoic strata are of the
same age, and that they were formed under similar conditions. In both
States we have at the base of the formation barren strata, followed by car-
122
THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
bonaceous strata, and at the summit barren strata again, while in many
minor points the resemblance is striking.
The following is the list of plants from the North Carolina strata ac-
cording to my determinations.
They may be put in the form of a table,
showing the plants peculiar to North Carolina, those found in the Virginia
Mesozoic, and those either found in the Triassic, Rheetic, and Jurassic of
foreign lands, or having affinities with the plants of these formations.
Fossil Plants from the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina.
Q.
4 LE
zg 28
Mesozoic plants from North Caro-| $3 | Found in the Vir- 3 °
lina. y& | ginia Mesozoic. ales
ge Za
3 ze
Ay BS
s
Equisetum Rogersi ...---..----- ---|---- Sere x Saami
Acrostichides Egyptiacus .........--|.----0---+|--22-222ee ee ee een enn |e ee een eens
A. inn@afolius . ..- 22. wecncecnenes|cenee-e-=s 2 ee Nsscstceed
A. rhombifolius : --. = --ceneccnccwce|---0e--=- x Seatenitcctals
Laccopteris Emmonsi .-..------.---
ZL. Oarolinensis:.....-.-.--.s0=-----|-
SFr CLEQ ONS eee eee ee ee =e
Mertensides bullatus....-----.------
Lonchopteris oblongus..-..-.--.--++|----++---- Near L. Virginien-|........-.
Macroteniopteris magnifolia
Asterocarpus platyrachis
Sagenopteris rhoifolia
Asplenites Rossertt
Cladophlebis obtusiloba
Pseudodancopsia nervosa
P. reticulata
Actinopteris quadrifoliata
Sphenozamites Rogersianus
Otozamites Carolinensis
Dioonites longifolius
Podozamites Emmonsi
Ctenophyllum lineare
CO. Braunianum, var.a....-..------
O. Braunianum, var. B
OS Bn Mont ans - eee ees eice a 3
0. robustum
Pterophyllwm decussatum
P. pectinatum
P. spatulatum
ss.
Found in the Jurassic
of other countries.
.| Near to Z. columnare.
Near to Otenophyllum
imbricatum.
Found in the Rhetic
of other countries.
Near to A. princeps.
Near to A. Goepperti-
anus.
Near to Oyclopteris
pachyrachis.
Near to L. Miinsteri.
Near to L. elegans.
x
Near to M. gigantea.
Near to Pecopteris con-
cinna.
x
Xx
Near to A. peltata.
Near to P. equale.
GENERAL REMARKS.
123
Fossil Plants from the Older Mesozoic of North Carolina—Continued.
Qa.
i Ee
Ad og
Mesozoic plants from North Caro- | Found in the Vir- = 8 Found in the Jurassic | Found in the Rhatico
ina. a £ ginia Mesozoic. a of other countries. of other countries.
ea ee
A ES
Cheirolepis Miinstert .......--------|..-------- SC ee |e = ony een eee eee ee eee eee x
SPGATE BY UU Uh Che etal trae ta aetnie ss = se | orale a sees | ee alee eee em see es eles sore acacte Near to Palissya con-
ferta.
JE TERT Canaan DEC ODO SAE ARNO| Se 9o C00 De] Peo OS OOD OSSD I-00d| hee aces 8] bance cin cee eaaceuino sh S x
P. Oarolinensis ....-.cnce-o0.---0-- he hemstbeeeser SeSCe ned) bch cosa cel Ss acn acre ne ner coconnees
OAC MCC BOOUWES pan ien an daaelh ane mini-| ice eese a ale| basenele-trdeian venation lsacle eas Near to Oycadites Blan-
Sordianus.
On lOng folie ener steno e een atea cas SOP Nhe peedeceeee as aeonn-|Kerewscaes snes csuceneomnrccaenes
Pachyphyllum peregrinum ......---|-..000-20-|---oenseecneneeesceclaecen-eenee x
Baiera multifida ....-.-...-++-----+ = Pde) BS sAdaricce tosdenconascme sSenecmccd
PORT RL y CAR Sa Roe ROBE BCA POce See eee Rast aeeceeeee DELECOD cc hoot4 cee aacece os ee eSSteo Ses x
Araucarites Oarolinensis ......-..-. Bo | PRES ne eee REECE CSG Een Se er cee Mosman SeOee aber’ reeroace
Zamiostrobus Emmonsi -.----------- 4 ee ngeeuedecdtort Beceeha Sed) Posto ee Ac abode bers
Bambusiwm Oarolinense ...---- --- SQ (Wetesos csesonee sesacel porocoscmd| Sadeosassectasdngssécos
OTe SAS -oo soo scoSsingsose con 9 Te RScercone 24+ 6 7+8
From this list we see that thirty-nine species, omitting the Bambusium,
may be determined, with some degree of reliability, from the Mesozoic of
North Carolina. An analysis of the list shows that nine species are peculiar
to North Carolina, and have no very near allies in other countries. Fifteen
species are found in the Virginia Mesozoic, and one is closely allied to a
Virginia plant, for the Lonchopteris oblongus may really be identical with
L. Virginiensis. Assuming, with Feistmantel, that the Rajmahal Group
of India is of Liassic age, we have two species identical with, and six
nearly allied to Jurassic plants, while seven species are identical with,
and eight closely allied to Rhetic plants. If we put these relation-
ships in the form of percentages, we find that 23 per cent. of the plants
are peculiar to North Carolina, 41 per cent. are found in Virginia, 20
per cent. are allied to, or identical with Jurassic forms, while the number
of forms identical with, or allied to Rheetic plants amounts to 38 per cent.
Among the species allied to, or identical with Virginia plants we have
some of the most abundant and characteristic species, such as Hgquisetum
Rogersi, Macroteniopteris magnifolia, Acrostichides linneeefolius, A. rhombifo-
lius, Mertensides bullatus, Baiera multifida, &c. Judging, then, from the evi-
124 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
dence of the fossil plants, the Mesozoic of North Carolina is of the same
age with that of Virginia.
If we compare the plants common to North Carolina and Virginia
with the plants peculiar to each State, certain facts become prominent.
The North Carolina strata are much richer in conifers than those from
Virginia, both in the number of individuals and in species. This is, I
think, due to the accidents of preservation. Most of the North Carolina
plants come from a horizon where the strata indicate disturbances of level,
abundant sedimentation, and the ingress of rivers. It will be noted that
by far the richest flora is that found in the blue shales intercalated in the
upper conglomerates, or No. 5 of the series of beds. These shales were
accumulated in pauses of the more violent action which produced the con-
glomerates, and would of course be very favorable for the reception and
preservation of plants swept off the higher parts of the land, where conifers
would grow. We haveno plants in the Virginia Mesozoic from this horizon.
Another fact worthy of note is the great rarity of plants from the coal-
bearing portion of the North Carolina Mesozoic, while nearly all of the
plants from the Virginia Mesozoic come from the strata associated immedi-
ately with the coal. While the vertical distance apart of the horizons
yielding plants in the two States is perhaps not sufficient to cause any con-
siderable change in the flora, the conditions that prevailed when the strata
of the two horizons were laid down were undoubtedly different, and easily
account for the differences that prevail in the kinds of plants preserved in
the two States. The North Carolina plants come, with three or four excep-
tions, from the upper strata which were accumulated, as above stated, in
waters no doubt in an unquiet state and loaded with sediment. We find,
then, in these strata comparatively few ferns, but many conifers and oycads,
plants that did not grow in the marshy grounds of the lakes, or on their
swampy shores, but were to be found on higher ground, and hence had to
be transported some distance in order to reach the sediment that preserved
them. On the other hand, the Virginia plants all come from the horizon of
the coal where the sediment was slowly accumulated, and where the waters
were still and received few remains of plants besides those that grew in the
mud and on low or marshy grounds. We find accordingly in the Virginia
GENERAL REMARKS. 125
beds almost no conifers, but few cycads, and an immense number of indi-
viduals of one species of Equisetum, with quite a large number of species
of ferns. These important differences in the conditions of preservation,
without doubt, lessened the number of identical species in the two States,
which number was, no doubt, much greater than it appears to be from the
number of preserved species.
It will be noted that I have placed in the Triassic column no species,
although the age of both the North Carolina and Virginia Mesozoic is held
by many to be Triassic, largely on the evidence of the plants. It will be
necessary, then, carefully to examine whether or not there is any such evi-
dence of Triassic age.
On examining the list of names employed by Emmons, we meet with
several which if correctly determined would indicate a Triassic or Permian
age for the Mesozoic beds. The plants of this kind are the following: Cal-
amites arenaceus, the several Walchias, Pterozamites decussatus, Albertia lati-
folia, Neggerathia striata. Professor Heer, in some notes on Emmons’s
plants, published in the ‘‘ American Journal of Science and Arts,” November,
1857, considers Pecopteris bullata (Mertensides bullatus of this memoir) to be
nearly allied to Pecopteris Stuttgartensis (Lepidopteris Stuttgartensis of Schim-
per) from the Trias of Europe. I have included in the above list Emmons’s
Pterozamites decussatus, because Professor Heer expressed the opinion that
it might be Pterophyllum longifolium of the European Trias.
The Calamites arenaceus of the above list is merely the internal cast of
Equisetum Rogersi, which is nearer Equisetum columnare than any other
foreign plant. Even were it more closely allied to Equisetum arenaceum, this
would not compel us to place it wholly among Triassic plants, for Saporta
has shown, in ‘Pal. Frangaise,” ‘‘ Plantes jurass.,” that this Equisetum goes up
into the base of the Rheetic in France. Pterozamites decussatus, or Pterophyllum
decussatum, is more nearly allied to Pterophyllum Andreanum, Schimp:, from
the Lias of Sweden, than to any other plant. The Nceggerathia and the
Walchias would indicate a Permian, and not a Triassic age. As to the
Permian age of the beds, no one will maintain it now. The Neggerathia is
the basal portion of Baiera multifida, a plant perhaps without very near
affinities with any previously described ones, but which is nearer to Baiera
126 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
teniata, Braun, of the Rhetic of Europe. The so-called Walchias are not
true Walchias. In the absence of the originals, and with only the imperfect
figures of Emmons before me, I freely admit that my determinations are
doubtful. The only one of these plants, judging by the figure, that might
be taken for a Walchia is the W. diffusus of Emmons, Palissya diffusa of
this work. The primary branches go off in a regularly pinnate manner
like those of Walchia, but this is the only point of resemblance. The pri-
mary branches themselves branch, and the leaves are flat, and apparently
in two rows; features that do not belong to Walchia. This plant has some
resemblance to Cheirolepis gracilis, Feistmantel, Araucarites gracilis, Old.
& Morr., from India. It may be a Cheirolepis and not a Palissya. Al-
though the figure of Emmens’s Albertia latifolia is very imperfect, it is clear
that the plant is rather an Otozamites than an Albertia. The shape of the
leaves and their insertion are similar to some Otozamites, while the nerva-
tion, as represented in the only complete leaflet on the plant, is given as
forking near the margin of the leaflet. Even if the plant were a true Al-
bertia, it could not, taken alone, be held as evidence of Triassic age. The
more natural view would be to consider it as a survivor, remaining among
the later plants. Indeed, when we consider that there is no evident uncon-
formity between the lower and upper beds of the Mesozoic areas, while it
is most probable that a portion, at least, of the lowest beds was deposited
in Triassic times, it is surprising that we do not find quite a number of
Triassic plants among those discovered in the Mesozoic of North Carolina and
Virginia. Pecopteris bullata is the only remaining plant for which a Triassic
age has been claimed. The very imperfect specimens of this fossil hitherto
made known did not suffice to give its true character. It is clear that it
has nothing in common with Pecopteris (or Lepidopteris) Stuttgartensis.*
The affinities of the North Carolina flora with Liassic plants are much
closer than with those of the Trias. We have two species that are probably
identical with Liassic plants, and six that are closely allied to those of the
Liassic or lower Oolitic strata, giving 20 per cent. of Jurassic forms.
The affinities, however, point more strongly to a Rhetic age for this
*I omit in this table a reference to the relationship of Asterocarpus platyrachis with A. Meriani,
and refer it for relationship to Pecopteris concinna Presl, of the Rhetic of Europe, as this is perhaps
nearer,
GENERAL REMARKS. 127
flora than any other. We have 38 per cent. of the plants either identical
with or very nearly allied to Rheetic fossils. Among these are many of the
plants most highly characteristic of the Rhetic of Europe. Thus, we have
among the North Carolina plants the genus Palissya represented by P.
Braunii and P. diffusa, allied to P. conferta of the Lias of India. The genus
Palissya is considered as highly characteristic of the Rheetic, and it is rep-
resented by still another species, P. Carolinensis. We have two Baieras,
one, the common Rhetic form, B. Miinsteriana, and the other B. muitifida,
having its nearest relation in B. teniata, another Rhetic plant. Macrote-
niopteris gigantea is a characteristic form of the Rhetic, and it is not clear
that it is distinct from M. magnifolia. Besides these, we may enumerate
such characteristic Rheetic plants as Cheirolepis Miinsteri, Sagenopteris rhoi-
folia, Asplenites Résserti, Laccopteris elegans, Ctenophyllum Braunianum, both
varieties. The forms allied to Rhetic plants are hardly less significant..
The genus Ctenophyllum is highly characteristic of the Rhetic and Lias..
This genus seems to contain the most abundant cycads in North Carolina.
The genus Acrostichides is another which seems to be very characteristic of
the Rheetic, and it is abundantly represented in North Carolina. We have
Acrostichides Egyptiacus very near to A. princeps; A. linnecefolius near to
A. Geppertianus ; and A. rhombifolius near to Cyclopteris pachyrachis. This
type of Acrostichides, with its pinnules, showing a tendency to assume a
rhomboid form for the sterile ones and a rounded form for the fertile ones,
seems to be very characteristic of the Rheetic, for we can hardly doubt that
Cyclopteris (or Neuropteris) pachyrachis is an Acrostichides. The genus Lac-
copteris is very characteristic of the Rheetic. It has, perhaps, three species in
the North Carolina flora. One, Z. elegans, seems to be identical with the
European species; and two, L. Hmmonsi and L. Carolinensis, are respect-
ively near to L. Miimsteri and L. elegans. I am, however, strongly inclined
to think that L. Carolinensis is L. elegans; and, if this be the case, then we
would have only two species of Laccopteris in this flora. The genus Cyca-
dites is characteristic of the Rhezetic, and more especially of the Jurassic. It
is here present with two species. The genus Podozamites is eminently a
Rheetic and Jurassic type. The P. Emmonsi is more nearly allied to Odlitic
128 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
forms than to any others. It may be compared with Podozamites lanceolatus
minor, Heer, ‘Flor. Foss. Arctica,” vol. iv, plate xxvii, figs. 7 and 8.
European authors, and especially Schimper, often call attention to the
strong resemblance between the Rheetic and Lower Jurassic floras, the like-
ness to the flora of the Lower Odlite of England being especially striking.
In accordance with this fact, the presence of a marked Jurassic element in
the flora of these Mesozoic beds, both in North Carolina and Virginia, is of
itself an evidence that they cannot be older than Rhetic. We are, then,
I think, entitled to consider that the older Mesozoic flora of North Car-
olina and Virginia is most probably Rheetic in age, and certainly not older.
Some authors hold that the Rhetic beds form the uppermost of the
Triassic strata. Others think that they are transition beds, having more
affinity with the Lower Lias. The ‘latter view will, I think, be justified by
a study of the flora, and I have, in this memoir, assumed its correctness.
EXPLANATIONS OF PLATES.
PLATE I.
Fig. 1. Schizoneura planicostata. (Calamites planicostatus, Rogers). Pages 14 to 16.
Fic. 2. Rhizome of Equisetum Rogersi.? Page 11.
Fig. 3. Internal cast of Schizoneura, spec.? Page 16.
Fics. 4-6. Schizoneura Virginiensis, spec. nov. Page 17.
Fic. 4. Portion of a stem showing several nodes.
Fic. 5. Fragment of a smaller stem with broader leaves,
Fic. 6. Leaf of full size of the broader kind.
Pa ACTOR) Ties
Fies. i, la, 2. Hquisetum Rogersi, Schimper. Pages 10 to 13.
Fic. 1. Impression of a large stem showing nodes.
Fig. 1a. Portion of the same magnified to show details.
Fig. 2. Impression of a smaller stem on which the nodes are absent.
Fig. 3. A young plant, natural size, of Macroteniopteris magnifolia, Rogers. Page 19.
PARE Helles
Fics. 1-3. Macroteniopteris magnifolia (Rogers) Schimper. Pages 18 to 22.
Fic. 1. Leaf of the smaller kind, of natural size,
Fic. la. Probable termination of leaf given in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2. Young leaf of natural size.
Fig. 3. Tip of leaf of medium size, showing a portion of the nervation.
PH AVES TVs.
Fies. 1-4. Macroteniopteris magnifolia, (Rogers) Schimper. Pages 18 to 22.
Fic. 1. Leaf showing supposed fruit-dots on the stem, and at a, b, and c, the variations in the nerva-
tion.
Fic. 1a. Portion of the stem of Fig. 1, magnified to show more distinctly the supposed fruit-dots.
Fig. 2. Leaf of unusual shape, of natural size.
Figs. 3 and 4. Much reduced outlines, to show the two normal shapes of the entire leaves.
PLATE V (double).
Figs. 1-4 a. Macroteniopteris magnifolia, (Rogers) Schimper. Pages 18 to 22.
Figs. 1-3. Parts of the same leaf of M. magnifolia, of the largest size commonly attained.
Fig. 1. Base of the leaf.
Fie. 2. Middle portion of the same.
Fie. 3. Summit of the same.
Fic. 4. Nervation of the same magnified to show the compound nature of the lateral nerves.
Fig. 4a. A lateral nerve of Fig. 4 still more magnified.
Fic. 5. Macroteniopteris crassinervis, Feist. Pages 22 to 23. Fragment of a frond of the largest size.
9F 129
130 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
PLATE VI.
Figs. 1, 2. Macroteniopteria crassinervis, Feist. Pages 22 to 23.
Fic. 1. A leaf of the smallest size.
Fic. 2. A leaf of the maximum size.
Fics. 3, 3a. Acrostichides linne@folius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fic. 3. Represents a portion of a pinna from the lower part of a sterile frond.
Fic. 3a. Pinnule of the same magnified to show the nervation.
PALACE SVT,
Fies. 1-4. Acrostichides linne@efolius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fic. 1. Ultimate pinn® from the upper part of a large compound pinna, showing the pinnules
all sterile.
Fic. 2. Ultimate pinne from the lower part of the same compound pinna from which Fig. 1 was
taken, showing fertile and sterile pinnules on the same pinna,
Fic. 3. Tip of a fertile ultimate pinna.
Fic. 4. Portion of a fertile ultimate pinna, showing the transition in form from sterile to fertile
pinnules.
Fig. 5. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov. Pages 33 to 34.
Fig. 5. Shows a portion of the lower part of the frond.
PLATE VII.
Figs. 1, la. Acrostfichides linneefolius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fig. 1. A portion of a sterile compound pinna from the upper part of a frond.
Fic. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show neryation.
Fics. 2,36. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. noy. Pages 29 to 32.
Fic. 2. Terminal portion of a large ultimate pinna.
Fic. 2a. Pinnule of Fig. 2 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 3. Portion of the upper part of a compound pinna when the ultimate pinnae are passing into
pinnules.
Fic. 3a. Magnified pinna from the lower part of Fig. 3.
Fic. 3b. Magnified pinna from the upper part of Fig. 3.
PLATE IX.
Fies. 1, la. Acrostichides linneefolius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fig, 1. A fertile compound pinna.
Fic. la. Pinnules of the same magnified to show fructification and nervation.
PLATE X.
Fies. 1, 1a,1b,1¢. Acrostichides densifolius, spec. nov. Pages 34 to 35.
Fic. 1. Portion of the normal frond or compound pinna.
Fic. la. Magnified pinnules from the lower portion, and Fig. 1b magnified pinnules from the upper
portion of Fig. 1, to show nervation.
Fic. 1c. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show the partial imbrication.
Fic. 2. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov. Pages 33 to 34. Shows a very slender variety of this
species.
EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 131
PLATE XI.
Fics. 1-3. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Fic. 1. Portion of a compound sterile pinna showing pinnules of the largest size.
Fig. la. Pinnules of the same magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 2. Portion of the lower part of a compound sterile pinna to show the small size of the pin-
nules there.
Fic. 3. Fragment of a fertile ultimate pinna showing abnormal form of pinnules.
Fic. 4, Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. noy. Pages 33 to 34. Shows a very slender variety of this spe-
cies that is not uncommon.
PLATE XII.
Figs. 1,2. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Frc. 1. A common form of the sterile pinnules with prolonged tips.
Frc. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 2. Portion of the upper part of a compound sterile pinna, where the ultimate pinna are
becoming simply lobed.
Figs. 3,30. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov. Pages 33 to 34.
Fic. 3. Gives the largest form seen of this species.
Fic. 3a. Pinnule of Fig. 3, magnified to show nervation,
PLATE XIII.
Figs. 1,2. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. Nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Fic. 1. Represents the upper part of a compound sterile pinna where the pinne have become
simple pinnules.
Fic. la. Pinnule of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 2. Upper portion of a compound fertile pinna where the ultimate pinn® are simply lobed.
Fics. 3, 3a, 3b. Acrostichides rhombifolius, var. rarinervis. Pages 32 to 33.
Fic. 3. Portion of a normal, sterile, compound pinna.
Fig. 3a. Pinnules from the lower part of Fig. 3.
Fic. 3b. Pinnules from the upper part of Fig. 3 magnified to show nervation.
PLATE XIV.
Figs. 1,2a. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Fig. 1. Fragment of a large fertile compound pinna of common occurrence.
Fic. 1a. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation and fructification.
Fic. 2. Fragment of a compound fertile pinna showing pinnules more rounded than those of Fig.
: 1; also common.
Fic. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2 magnified to show nervation and fructification.
PLATE XV.
Fics. 1, 1a. Mertensides distans, spec. nov. Pages 39 to 40.
Fig. 1. Portion of a compound pinna of the normal kind.
Frc. 1a. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show the fructification.
Fics. 2-5. Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39.
Fic. 2. Portion of a compound fertile pinna of the most common kind, taken from the lower part
of the pinna.
Fic. 3. Portion of an ultimate sterile pinna, taken from the lower part of the compound pinna.
Frc. 3a. Pinnule of Fig. 3 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 4. Portion of a compound sterile pinna, showing large heteromorphous pinnules.
Fic. 5. Portion of a heteromorphous pinnule of the largest size.
132 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
PLATE XVI.
Fias. 1-3. Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39.
Fic. 1. Portion of a compound fertile pinna, showing the diminution in number of the sori towards
the summit of the pinna.
Fic. 1a. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show the fructification and nervation.
Fic. 2. Portion of the upper part of a compound sterile pinna showing uncommon form of the pin-
nules.
Fig. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 3. Portion of a compound sterile pinna showing an unusual form for the pinnules,
PLATE XVII.
Fies. 1-2a. Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39.
Fic. 1. Portion of the lower part of a compound sterile pinna.
Fic. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 1b. Heteromorphous pinnule of Fig. 1, magnified.
Fic. 2. Upper portion of a compound sterile pinna.
Fig. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Py AWB Xvi lolol.
Figs. 1,2a. Mertensides bullatus, (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39.
Fic. 1. Portion of the lower part of a compound fertile pinna, showing the pinnules with undu-
late margins, and the increase of sori towards the middle and summit portions of the
ultimate pinne.
Fic. 2. Portion of a compound fertile pinna with fully fructified pinnules. A common form.
Fic. 2a, Pinnules of Fig. 2, magnified to show the fructification.
PLATE XIx.
Fic. 1. Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39. Portion of a fertile compound pinna,
showing the sori and nervation as seen when the upper surface of the plant is presented to
view. —
Figs. 2-5. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 41 to 45.
Fic. 2. Portion of the lower part of a compound sterile pinna, showing deeply lobed pinnules.
Fic. 2a. Portion of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 3. Upper part of a sterile pinna, showing partially united pinnules.
Fic. 4. Portion of a sterile pinna, with pinnules having a very broad midrib.
Fic. 5. Summit of a sterile pinna.
PLATE XX.
Figs. 1,2. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 41 to 45.
Fic. 1. Three compound sterile pinnz, that were once attached to a common rachis, showing the
gradation in depth and shape of the lobes, from the lower to the upper and summit
portions.
Fic. 1a. Portion of the lower part of the lower compound pinna, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 1b. Portion of the summit of the uppermost compound pinna, magnified to show nervation.
Fie. 2. Summit of the middle compound pinna. :
EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 133
PLATE XXI.
Figs. 1, 2. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 41 to 45.
Fig. 1. Several compound sterile pinne that were once attached to a common rachis, showing the
diminishing depth of the lobes from base to summit.
Frc. 1a. Portion of a lower pinnule of Fig. 1, magnified to show the nervation.
Fic. 1b. Pinnule from the upper part of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 2. Portion of a sterile pinna with large, broad pinnules.
Figs. 3,4. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus. Page 45 to 46.
Fig. 3. Summit of a sterile ultimate pinna magnified.
Fic. 4. Upper part of a compound sterile pinna.
PLATE XXII.
Fics. 1-3. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 41 to 45.
Fig. 1. Portion of a sterile compound pinna with large pinnules. A common form.
Fic. La. Pinnule of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 2. Portion of a compound pinna showing fructification only at the tips of the pinnuies.
Fic. 3. Portion of the stipe.
PLATE XXIII.
Figs. 1-4a. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 41,to 45,
Fic. 1. Several fertile pinnew that were once attached to a common rachis, seen from the upper
surface with the sori showing through the leaf substance of the pinnules.
Fig. 2. Portion of the lower part of a compound fertile pinna, seen as in Fig: 1.
Fic. 3. Portion of a compound sterile pinna showing unusually large pinnules with undulate
margins.
Fig. 4, Portion of a fertile pinna seen from the under side and showing the true form of the sori.
Fic. 4a. Portion of the pinnule of Fig. 4, magnified to show the form of the sori.
PLATE XXIV.
Figs. 1,2a. Asterocarpus Virginiensis? spec. nov. Page 42.
Fic. 1. Portion of a compound fertile pinna of perhaps a variety of A. Virginiensis.
Fig. 2. Fragment of a larger form of the same plant.
Fic. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2, magnified to show the sori.
Figs. 3-5a. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus. Pages 45 to 46.
Fic. 3. Portion of a sterile compound pinna of the normal form.
Fic. 3a. Pinnules of Fig. 3, magnified to show the nervation.
Fic. 4. Portion of a long sterile ultimate pinna.
Fic. 4a. Pinnule of Fig. 4 magnified.
Fic. 5. Ultimate sterile pinna with broad deep lobes.
Fic. 5a. Pinnule of Fig. 5 magnified.
PLATE XXV.
Figs. 1, 1a. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus. Pages 45 to 46.
Fic. 1. Shows a form with broad rounded lobes and a fine, closely crowded nervation.
Fic. 1a. Pinnules of Fig. 1, magnified to show the nervation.
Fics. 2-6. Asterocarpus platyrachis, spec. noy. Pages 46 to 47. °
Fic. 2. Upper part of a compound sterile pinna.
Fic. 3. Portion of a fertile compound pinna with fully fructified pinnules.
Fig. 3a. Pinnules of Fig. 3, magnified to show the sori.
134 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
Fics. 3b and 3c, Single sori of somewhat different form, much magnified.
Fic. 4. A portion of the lower part of a compound sterile pinna,
Fic. 4a. Pinnules of Fig, 4, magnified to show the nervation.
Fic. 5. Fragment of pinna showing fertile and sterile pinnules on the same pinna.
Fig. 6. Summit of a sterile compound pinna. -
PLATE XXVI.
Fig. 1. Asterocarpus platyrachis, spec. nov. Pages 46 to 47. Upper part of a fertile poinponid pinna,
Figs. 2, 2a. Asterocarpus penticarpus, spec. nov. Page 48.
Fig. 2. Portion of a fertile frond.
Fic. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2, magnified to show the sori.
Figs. 3-4a. Pecopteris rarinervis, spec. nov. Pages 48 to 49.
Fic. 3. Portion of an ultimate pinna.
Fic. 3a. Pinnule of Fig. 3, magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 4. Summit of an ultimate pinna.
Fig. 4a. Pinnules of Fig. 4, magnified to show nervation.
Fics. 5, 5a. Cladophlebis ovata, spec. nov. Pages 50 to 51.
Fic. 5. Normal form of the plant.
Fic. 5a. Pinnules of Fig. 5, magnified to show nervation.
Figs. 6-7. Cladophlebis auriculata, spec. nov. Page 50.
Fie. 6. Normal form of the plant.
Fie. 6a. Pinnule of Fig. 6, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 7. Abnormal form of the pinnules.
PLATE XXVII.
Fics. 1, la. Cladophlebis rotundiloba, spec. nov. Pages 52 to 53.
Fic. 1. Portion of pinna.
Fic. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fics. 2, 2a. Cladophlebis microphylla, spec. noy. Pages 51 to 52.
Fic. 2. Portion of the upper part of a compound pinna, or of the frond.
Fig. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2. magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 3. Cladophlebis ovata, spec. nov. Pages 50 to 51. Gives a portion of the lower part of a com-
pound pinna, or of the frond.
Fies. 4, 4a. Cladophlebis pseudowhitbiensis, spec. nov. Page 52.
Fic. 4. Portion of a compound pinna, or of the frond.
Fig. 4a. Pinnule of Fig. 4, magnified to show nervation.
PAS Xe XV er:
Fics. 1-2. Lonchopteris Virginiensis, spec. noy. Pages 53 to 54.
Fic. 1. Summit of a large compound pinna, or of the frond.
Fic. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 2. Portion of a pinna with long acute pinnules.
PLATE XXIX.
Fias. 1-4. Lonchopteris Virginiensts, spec. nov. Pages 53 to 54.
Fia. 1. Portion of frond with normal, rounded pinnules.
Fic. 1a. Pinnule of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 2. Portions of pinnz, with normal acute pinnules.
EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 135
Fig. 3. Portion of a pinna with pinnules of the largest size.
Fic. 4. Portions of pinnw showing broad rounded pinnules.
Figs. 5, 5a. Cladophlebis subfalcata, spec. nov. Page 49..
Fic. 5. Shows the normal character.
Fig. 5a. Pinnule of Fig. 5, magnified to show nervation.
PLATE XXX.
Fis. 1-4a, Pseudodaneopsis reticulata, spec. noy. Pages 59 to 60.
Fia. 1. Portion of the frond restored, showing pinnules of large size.
Fig. 2. Fragment of a very large pinnule.
Fic. 2a. Portion of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 3. Portion of a frond with pinnules of the smaller kind.
Fic. 4. Upper part of a compound pinna with small pinnules.
Fic. 4a. Portion of a pinnule of Fig 4, much magnified to show nervation,
Fig. 5. Sagenopteris rhoifolia, Pr. Page 63. Fragment of a leaflet.
Fig. 6. Dicranopteris, Spec.(?). Page 63. Gives a fragment of a leaf like Dicranopteris.
PLATE XXXI.
Fics. 1,2. Pseudodancopsis nervosa, spec. noy. Pages 61 to 63.
Fic. 1. Portion of the plant showing pinnules of normal size.
Fic. 2. Portion of the upper part of the plant.
Figs. 3,4. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58.
Fic. 3. Portion of a small segment showing only the cross-bars of the nervation.
Fie. 4. Portion of a segment of normal size showing three teeth on the right-hand border and one
on the left-hand border.
PLATE XXXII.
Fic. 1. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58, Represents a segment with incom-
plete margins, but quite long.
Fias. 2-4. Pterophyllum affine, Nathorst. Pages 66 to 67.
Fig. 2, Fragment with the broadest leaflets.
Fig. 3. Fragment of leaf with average-sized leaflets.
Fig. 4. Fragment with leaflets of the narrowest kind.
PATE, XXX:
Fic. 1. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58. Shows the basal undivided part of
the frond. :
Fic. 2. Podozamites Emmonsi (P. lanceolatus of Emmons). Pages 77 to 78. Gives a form with leaflets
rather narrower than the normal form given by Emmons.
Fias. 3-4a. Ctenophyllum taxinum (Lind. and Hut.). Pages 67 to 68.
Fig. 3. Lower portion of a leaf.
Fig. 4. Upper portion of a leaf.
Fia. 4a, Leaflet of Fig. 4, magnified to show nervation.
'
136 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
PLATE XXXIV.
Fic. 1. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58. Portion of the undivided part of
a large frond,
Fics. 2-4a. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73.
Fig. 2. Fragment of the lowest part of a leaf next to the leafless petiole.
Fig. 3. Fragment from the upper part of a leaf.
Fic. 4, Fragment from the middle part of a leaf.
Fic. 4a. Portion of Fig, 4, magnitied to show neryation.
PLATE XXXY.
Fic. 1. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73. Fragment of the upper part of a large leaf.
Figs. 2,2a. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. ecpansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58,
Fic. 2. Fragment of a very large segment.
Fic. 2a. Portion of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
“PLATE XR Vile
Fics. 1,1a,1b,1c. Pterophyllum inequale, spec. nov. Pages 64 to 65.
Fic. 1. Leaf of normal kind,
Fig. la. Summit of Fig. 1.
Fic. 16. Portion of a leaflet from the lower part of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 1c. Portion of a leaflet from Fig. 1a, magnified to show nervation.
PLATE XXXVII.
Fias. 1-2. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73.
Fig. 1. Upper portion of a large leaf.
Fic. la. Portion of the petiole of Fig. 1.
Fic. 2. Fragment of a middle portion of a leaf, showing leaflets unusually distant.
PLATE XXXVIII.
Fias. 1-24. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73.
Fig. 1. Summit of the large leaf given in Fig. 1, Plate XX XVII.
Fic. 2. Upper portion of a leaf, showing the rounded form of the midrib on the under side.
Fic. 2a. Base and summit of a leaflet of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Fias. 3-5. Ctenophyllum truncatum, spec. nov. Pages 68 to 69.
Fig. 3. Upper portion of a leaf.
Fic. 4. Portion of a leaf, with the leaflets all broken at base.
Fig. 5. Shows natural position of leaflets in Fig. 4.
PLATE XXXIX.
Fics. 1-3a. Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. nov. Pages 73 to 76.
Fig. 1. Fragment of the lower part of the leaf, showing the great width of the flat stem.
Fic. la. Portion of Fig. 1, magnified to show the insertion of the nerves.
Fig. 2. Portion of the middle of a leaf with remote leaflets; also showing the thick epidermis of the
stem and the effect of it in increasing the apparent width of the stem.
Fig. 3. Fragment of the upper part of a leaf. '
Fig. 3a. Portion of a leaflet of Fig, 3, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 5. Ctenophyllum giganteum, spec. nov. Pages 76 to 77. Shows a portion of a leaflet of a huge Cteno-
phyllum. The basal portion of the leaflet is that given here.
EXPLANATION OF PLATES. Tad
PLATE XL.
Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. nov. Pages 73 to 76. Represents the basal portion of a very large
leaf of this plant. The leaflets extend to 12 and 18 inches in width.
PLATE XLI (double).
Fics. 1,2. Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. nov. Pages 73 to 76.
Fig. 1. Represents the middle portion of the same leaf whose base was given on Plate XL.
Fic. 2. Lower portion of the plant given on Plate XL
PLATE XLII (double).
Fig. 1, 1a, 1b. Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. nov. Pages 73 to 76.
Fra. 1. Represents the summit of the same large leaf whose base is given on Plate XL, and middle
portion in Fig. 1, Plate XLI.
Fic. 1a. Represents the middle portion of a leaflet of Fig. 1, magnified to show the parallel posi-
tion of the nerve-bundles.
Fie. 1b. Represents a portion of the base of a leaflet of Fig. 1, still more magnified, to show the
complex nature and mode of splitting up of the nerve-bundles at their base.
Figs. 2-5. Podozamites tenuistriatus, spec. nov. Pages 78 to 79.
Fic. 2. Gives a fragment of a leaf of the largest form.
Fig. 3. Gives a portion of a leaf of normal size.
Fic. 3a. Leaflet of Fig. 3, magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 3b. Tip of Fig. 3a, still more magnified to show convergence of the nerves at their ends.
Fig. 4. Fragment of a plant showing insertions of leaflets perhaps flattened from above.
Fig. 5. Leaflet of largest size.
PLATE XLIII.
Fig. 1, 1a. Sphenozamites Rogersianus, spec. nov. Pages 80 to 84.
Fic. 1. Summit of a leaf of medium size.
Fig. 1a. Belongs to the lowest leaflet on the right-hand side,
Fic. 2. Pterophyllum decussatum, Emmons. Page 67. .
Fig. 2. Gives the insertion and basal portions of two leaflets.
PLATE XLIV.
Figs. 1-2b. Sphenozamites Rogersianus, spec. nov. Pages 80 to 84.
Fic. 1. Portion of the middle part of a leaf of normal size.
Fic. 2. Nervation magnified to show the granulation.
Fig. 2a. Nervation magnified to show the complexity of the nerves and their mode of forking from
the base. i
Fic. 2b. Nervation still more magnified to show the elongation of the dots into cross-bars.
Fic. 3. Podozamites tenuistriatus, spec. nov. Pages 78 to 79. Shows a form with leaflets broad near the
insertions.
Figs. 4-6. Cycadites tenuinervis, spec. nov. Page 84.
Fic.4. Represents the upper part of a leaf.
Fic. 5. Represents the middle part of a leaf.
Fic. 6. Represents a small form.
138 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
PLATE XUV (double).
Fias. 1,2. Sphenozamites Rogersianus, spec. noy. Pages 80 to 84.
Fic. 1, Represents the summit of a leaf of normal size.
Fic. 2. Represents a leaflet of the largest size.
Fig. 3. Baiera multifida, spec. nov. Pages 87 to 88. Basal portion of a leaf.
PLATE XLVI.
Figs. 1-3. Baiera multifida, spec nov. Pages 87 to 88.
Fig. 1, Portion of a leaf showing the numerous subdivisions towards the summit of the leaf.
Fic. 2. Portion of the lower part of a leaf showing nervation.
Fic. 3. Fragment of the upper part of a leaf.
PLATE XLVII.
Fies. 1,2. Baiera multifida, spec. noy. Pages 87 to 88.
Fia. 1. Segment of a much-divided leaf.
Fig. 2, Fragment of a very large leaf showing nervation.
Fia. 3. Cone of conifer, spec.? Page 91.
Figs. 4-5 a. Zamiostrobus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Page 85.
Fras. 4,5, Represent fragments of different cones, showing somewhat different shapes in the scars
ot the scales,
Figs. 4a,5a. Represent scars of Figs. 4 and 5 magnified to show shape.
Figs. 6,7. Cheirolepis Miinsteri (Schenk), Schimper. Pages 88 to 89. Terminal portions of small twigs.
Fic. 6. Is a copy of Rogers’s figure. :
Fig. 7. Represents a small fragment found in the Cumberland area of the Mesozoic.
’
PAPAVT Sea Lhe
Fig. 1. Cone of a conifer of the same species as that shown in Fig. 3, Plate XLVII. This shows what
was probably the base of the cone. Page 91.
Fic. 2. Fragment of an undetermined plant. Page 90.
Fig, 3, Fragment of Bumbusinm? Page 90,
Fic. 3a. Represents a portion of Fig. 3, magnified to show the nervation.
Fic. 4, Fragment of an undetermined plant. Page 90.
Fic. 5, Impression of a portion of the stem of a cycad. Page 91.
Fic. 5a. Leaf-sear of Fig. 5 magnified.
Fics. 6,7. Laccopteris Emmonsi (Emmons). * Page 102. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4, figs. 5 and 9,
Fic. 6. Portion of a fertile pinna.
Fig. 7. Portion of a sterile pinna.
Fic. 8. Acrostichides Egyptiacus. Page 99. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 8.
Fic. 8a. Magnified pinnule, showing nervation.
PLATE XLIx.
Figs. 1, la. Lonchopteris oblongus. Page 103. Emmons, ‘‘Am, Geol.,” plate 4, figs. 6 and 8.
Fig. 1. Summit of frond. ;
Fic. la. Pinnule of Fig. 1, enlarged.
Fic. 2. Asterocarpus platyrachis. Page 104, Emmons “Am. Geol.,” fig. 71.
*The pages given as here for these North Carolina plants refer to pages of this work.
EXPLANATION OF PLATES.
Fic. 3. Equisetum Rogersi. Page 109. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 3.
Fic. 4. Sphenozamites Rogersianus. Page 98. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 5.
Fic. 5. Sagenopteris rhoifolia. Page 104. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4, fig. 10.
Fic. 6. Ctenophyllum Brawnianum, Var.a, Page 115. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4, fig. 11.
Fic. 7. Acrostichides rhombifolius. Page 105. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 5.
Fig. 8. Araucarites Carolinensis. Page 119. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 4.
Fic. 9. Cladophlebis obtusiloba. Page 106. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 1.
Frc. 10. Cheirolepis Miinsteri. Page 99. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 3.
Fics. 11, 12, 12a. Laccopteris Carolinensis. Page 102. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 68 and plate 4, figs. 1, 2.
Fig. 11. Sterile pinnules enlarged.
Fia. 12. Portion of fertile pinnule.
Fig. 12a. Portion of Fig. 12, magnified.
PLATE L.
Fias. 1, 2. Palissya Braunii. Page 107. Emmons, “Am. Geol.”
Fic. 1. Portion of a large branch. Emmons, “Am, Geol.,” plate 4a.
Fic. 2. Summit of branch with cone? Emmons, ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” fig. 72.
Fic. 3. Cheirolepis Miinsteri. Page 108. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 75.
Fig. 4. Pachyphyllum peregrinum. Page 108, Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 76.
Fic.
Fic.
Fie.
Fig.
Fic.
FIG,
Fig.
FIG.
Fic.
Fic.
Fic.
FiG.
Fic.
Fic.
Fig.
Oaryraoarrwnr
PLATE Ll.
. Palissya Braunii. Page 107. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 73.
Pterophyllum decussatum. Page 111. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 1.
. Cycadites acutus. Page 109. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 81.
. Palissya diffusa. Page 106. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 2.
. Palissya Carolinensis. Page 109, Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 80.
. Laccopteris elegans. "Page 105. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 2.
Cycadites longifolius. Page 110. Emmons, “Ame Geol.,” fig. 82.
. Baiera Miinsteriana. Page 120. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 102.
PLATE LIlI.
1. Bambusium? Carolinense. Page 120. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 100.
2, Undetermined plant. Page 119. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 99.
3.
4. Araucarites Carolinensis. Page 119. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 98.
Actinopteris quadrifoliata. Page 120. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 2.
g I » 1S
4a. Scales of the cone magnified. Emmons, ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 6.
5.
6.
Zamiostrobus Emmonsi. Page 117, Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 92a.
Otozamites Carolinensis. Page 117. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 95.
PLATE LIII.
Baiera multifida. Page 118. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 96.
. Podozamites Emmonsi. Page 110. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 7.
Cheirolepis Miinsteri. Page 107. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 74.
. Pterophyllum pectinatum. Page 112. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 84.
. Dioonites longifolius. Page 111. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 83.
. Pterophyllum spatulatum. Page 114. Emmons, “‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 88.
Equisetum Rogersi. Page 109. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 9.
o iJ
139
140 THE OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA OF VIRGINIA.
PLATE LIV.
Fic. 1. Ctenophyllum Emmonsi. Page 113. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 86a.
Fia. 2. Ctenophylium lineare. Page 114. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 87.
Fig. 3. Pseudodaneopsis reticulata. Page 116. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 90.
Figs. 4,5. Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. 8B. Page 113. Emmons, “Am. Geol.”
Fia. 4. Portion of plant of normal size. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 85.
Fig. 5. Portion of a plant of the smaller kind. Emmons, “‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 86.
Fies. 6,7. Ctenophyllum robustum. Page 116. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.”
Fic. 6, Summit of leaf. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 92.
Fig. 7. Middle portion of a leaf.. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 91.
Fic. 8. Pseudodanwopsis nervosa. Page 115. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 89.
Fig. 9, Asplenites Rosserti. Page 105, Emmons, ‘“‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4, fig. 3.
Fic. 10. Zamiostrobus spec.? Page 117. Emmons, ‘‘Am, Geol.,” fig. 93.
LIN DEB xX
[Names of plants described in this work are in Roman; names of plants quoted are in italics;
pages giving the descriptions are marked with a star. ]
Acrostichides (Acrostichites Goep.). Pp. *24, 127.
A. densifolius, spec. nov. Pp.*34 to 35; 93,94.
Fig. 1.
A. Egyptiacus (Em. spec.).
Fig. 8.
A. Goeppertianus (Goep. spec.). Pp. 24, 27, 127.
A. linneefolius (Bunb. spec.). Pp. 24,*25 to 29; 34, 123, 127.
Plate VI, Fig. 3; Plate VH, Figs. 1 to 4; Plate VIII, Fig.
1; Plate IX, Fig.1.
A. microphyllus, spec. nov. Pp. *33 to34; 93,94. Plate VII,
Fig.5; Plate X, Fig.2; Plate XI. Fig.4; Plate XII, Fig. 3.
A. Oblongus, Emmons. Pp. 54, *103. Plate XLIX, Fig. 1.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,’’ page 101, plate 4, figs. 6, 8.
A. pachyrachis (Goep., spec.). Page 24.
A. princeps, Schenk. Pp. 24, 99, 127.
A. rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pp. *29 to 32; 33,123. Plate VIII,
Figs. 2, 3; Plate XI, Figs. 1 to 3; Plate XI, Figs. 1, 2;
Plate XII, Figs. 1,2; Plate XIV, Figs 1, 2.
A. rhombifolius, var. rarinervis, spec. nov. Pp. 24, 27, *32 to
to 33; 95. Plate XIII, Fig. 3.
A. Williamsoni (Brongt. spec.). Page 24.
Actinopteris peltata, Schenk. Page 121.
A. quadrifoliata (Em. spec.). Page *120. Plate LII, Fig. 3.
Albvertia latifolia, Emmons. Pp. *117, 125, 126. Plate LIV,
Fig. 6; Emmons, ‘‘ Am. Geol.,”’ page 126, fig. 95.
Alethopteris Indica, Old. & Morr. Page 44.
A. Mexicana, Newb. Page 52.
A. Whitbiensis, Heer. Pp. 49, 94.
A. Whitneyi, Newb. Page 44.
Araucaria peregrina, L.& H. Page 108.
Araucarites Carolinensis (Em. spec.). Pp. *118, *119. Plate
LI, Fig. 4; Plate XLIX, Fig. 8.
A. gracilis, Old. & Morr. Page 126.
Areas of Older Mesozoic in Virginia.
Aspinwall Shaft. Page 3.
Asplenites Résserti, Schenk. Page 49.
A. Résserti, var. (Em. spec.) Schenk, Pp. *105,127, Plate
LIV, Fig. 9.
Asterocarpus, Goeppert. Pp. 35, 40.
A. Meriani, Heer. Pp. 47, 49, 95, 126.
A. penticarpus, spec. nov. Pp.*48,94. Plate XXVI, Fig. 2.
A. platyrachis, spec.nov. Pp. *46 to 47; 49, 95, 126. Plate
XXV, Figs. 2 to 6; Plate XXVI, Fig. 1.
A. platyrachis (Em. spec.). Page *104. Plate XLIX, Fig.
2. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 102, fig. 71.
A. Sternbergii, Goep. Page 48.
A. Virginiensis, spec. noy. Pp. *41 to 45; 94; Plate XIX.
Figs. 2 to 5; Plate XX, Figs.1,2; Plate XXI, Figs. 1,2;
Plate XXU, Figs. 1 to 3; Plate XXII, Figs.1 to 4; Plate
XXIV, Figs. 1, 2.
Plate X,
Pp. *98, 99,127. Plate XLVIM,
Pp. 1-9.
A. Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus, spec. nov. Pp. *45 to 46,
538. Plate XXI, Figs. 3, 4; Plate XXIV, Figs. 3 te 5;
Plate XXV, Fig. 1.
Baiera, Fr. Braun. Pp. 85, &6.
B. Multifida, spec. noy. Pp. *87 to 88; 118, 120, 123, 125, 127.
Plate XLV, Fig. 3; Plate XLVI, Figs. 1 to 3; Plate
XLVII, Figs. 1, 2.
B. Miinsteriana (Em. spec.), Sap. Pp. *120, 127.
Fig. 8.
B. teniata, Braun. Pp. 126, 127.
B. Virginiana, F. & W. Page 86.
Bambusinm? Page *90. Plate XLVIII, Figs. 3, 4.
B. Carolinense (Em. spec.). Page *120, Plate LII, Fig. 1.
Black Heath. Page 4.
Brachyphyllum, Brongt. Page 88.
B. afine, Schenk. Page 88.
B. Miinsteri, Schenk. Page 88.
Buckingham area of Mesozoic. Page 5.
Calamites arenaceus, Brongt. Pp. 12, 14, 15, 109, 125,
C. disjunctus, Emmons. Page 109.
C. planicostatus, Rogers. Pp. 14, 16, 109.
C. punctatus, Emmons. Pp. 83, *98. Plate XLIX, Fig. 4.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 35, plate 6, fig. 5.
O. Suckowii, var 6, Brongt. Page 15.
Camptopteris, Presl. Pp. 57, 58.
0. Remondi,-Newb. Page 58.
Carbon Hill. Pp. 3, 8.
Chatham Series. Page 100.
Cheirolepis, Schimp. Page 88.
CO. gracilis, Feist. Page 126.
Plate LI,
C. Minsteri (Schenk), Schimp. Pp. *88 to 89; 127. Plate
XLVII, Figs. 6, 7.
C. Minsteri (Em. spec.), Schimp. Pp. *99, *107. Plate
XLIX, Fig. 10; Plate L, Fig. 3; Plate LIII, Fig. 3. Em-
mons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,’”’ pp. 107, 108, figs. 74, 75.
Cladophlebis, Sap. Page 28.
C. auriculata, spec. nov. Pp. *50, 94.
C. microphylla, spec. nov. Pp.*51 to 52; 94.
Fig. 2.
C. obtusiloba (Em. spec.). Page*l06. Plate XLIX, Fig. 7.
C. ovata, spec.noy. Pp.*50to51; 52,94. Plate XXVI, Fig
5; Plate XXVII, Fig. 3.
C. pseudowhitbiensis, spec, nov. Pp.*52,94. Plate XX VI,
Fig. 4.
C. rotundiloba, spec. noy. Pp. *52to 53; 94.
Fig. 1.
C. subfaleata, spec.nov. Page *49. Plate X XIX, Fig. 5.
O, Whitbiensis, Sap. Page 94.
Clathropteris, Brongt. Page 57.
0. Meniscioides, Brongt. Page 57.
Plate XXVI, Figs. 6, 7.
Plate XXVII,
Plate XX VIL,
141
142
‘C. platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pp. *54 to 58. Plate
XXXI, Figs.3,4; Plate XXXII, Fig.1; Plate XXXII,
Fig.1; Plate XXXIV, Fig.1; Plate XXXV, Fig. 2.
C. platyphylla, Brongt. Pp. 56, 57.
O. rectiusculus, Hitch. Page 47.
Clover Hill. Pp. 4,8, 9.
Comephyllum eristatum, Emmons. Page 118.
Comparison of the Older Mesozoic plants of Virginia and
North Carolina. Pp. 123, 124, 125.
Cones, undetermined. Page*91. Plate XLVII, Fig. 3; Plate
XLVIUI, Fig. 1.
Conifers, occurrence of, in the Older Mesozoic of Virginia.
Page 86.
Ctenophyllum, Schimper. Pp. 67, 95, 127.
C. Braunianum, var. a Goep. Pp.*69 to 73; 74, 114, 127.
Plates XXXIV, Figs. 2to4; Plate XXXV, Fig.1; Plate
XXXVIII, Figs. 1, 2.
C. Braunianum, var. a (Em. spec.) Goep.
XLIX, Fig. 6. :
C. Braunianum, var. 8 (Em. spec.) Goep. Pp. *112 to 113;
127. Plate LIV, Figs. 4, 5.
C. Emmonsi (Em. spec.). Page *113. Plate LIV, Fig.1.
C. giganteum, spec. nov. Pp. *76 to 77. Plate XX XIX,
Fig. 5.
C. grandifolium, spec. nov. Pp.*73to76; 95. Plate XX XIX,
Figs.1 to 3; Plate XL; Plate XLI; Plate XLII, Fig. 1.
0. imbricatum, (Ett.) Schimp. Pp. 68, 113.
C. lineare (Em. spec.). Page *1l4. Plate LIV, Fig.2
C. pecten, Schimp. Page 68.
C. robustum (Em. spec.). Page *116. Plate LIV, Figs, 6, 7.
C. taxinum (Lind. & Hut. spec.). Pp.*67to 68; Plate XX XIII,
Figs. 2 to 4.
C. truncatum, spec. nov. Pp.*68 to 69. Plate XX XVII,
Figs. 3 to 5.
Cumberland area of Mesozoic.
Cyathea, Sm. Page 47.
Cycadites, Brongt. Pp. 84, 127.
C.acutus, Emmons. Page™109. PlateLI, Fig.3. Emmons,
‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 114, fig. 81.
O. Blandfordianus, Old. & Mor.
CO. Outchensis, Feist. Page 84.
C. longifolius, Nat. Page 110.
C. longifolius, Emmons. Page 110. Plate LI, Fig. 7. Em-
mons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 115, fig. 82.
CO. Roemeri, Schenk. Page 110.
C. tenuinervis, spec. nov. Page*84. Plate XLV, Figs. 4 to6.
Cyclopteris Beanii, Lindl. & Hut. Page 118.
C. obscurus, Emmons. Pp. 63, *104, 110, Plate XLIX, Fig.
5. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 104; plate 4, fig. 10.
C. pachyrachis, Goep. Pp. 24, 25, 32, 95, 127.
Daneopsis, Heer. Pp. 58, 95.
D. Marantacea, Heer. Pp. 58, 62.
Deep Run. Page 3.
Dieranopteris Rimeriana, Schenk. Page 63.
D. species? Page *63. Plate XXX, Fig. 6.
Dioonites, Schimper. Page 74.
D. Humboltianus (Dunk.), Schimp. Page 111.
D. linearis, Emmons. Pp. 73, *114. Plate XLIX, Fig. 6.
Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 121; plate 4, fig. 11.
D. longifolius (Em.spec.). Page*1ll. Plate LIT, Fig. 5.
Dictyophyllum, Lindl. & Hunt. Pp. 57,58.
Echinocarpus, Emmons. Page 109.
Emmons's collections of plants. Page 97.
Emmons's list of North Carolina Triassic plants. Page 101.
Equisetites columnaris, Bronn. Page 13.
Equisetum arenacewm, Bronn. Pp. 12, 13, 125.
Page *115. Plate
Pp. 4,6.
Page 110.
INDEX.
E. arundiniforme, Rogers. Page 13.
E. columnare, Brongt. Pp. 12, 13, 109, 125.
E. columnaroides, Emmons. Page 98. Plate XLIX, Fig. 3.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 35; plate 6, fig, 3.
E. laterale, L.& H. Page 17.
E. Mytharum, Heer. Page 13.
E. Rogersi (Rogers), Schimp. Pp.*10 to 14; 15, 16, 70, 90, 109,
123,125. Plate I, Fig.2; Plate I, Figs. 1, 2.
E. Rogersi (Em. spéc.). Page *98. Plate XLIX, Fig. 3.
Filicites fimbriatus, Bunb. Page 44.
F. vittarioides, Brongt. Page 72.
General remarks and conclusions. Pp. 121 to 128.
Geology of the Virginia Mesozoic Areas. Pp.1 to 9.
Gingkophyllum Grasseti, Sap. Page 86.
Gleicheniacee. Pp. 35, 40.
Gleichenites microphyllus, Schenk. Pp. 40, 95.
Gleichenia Bindrabunensis, Schimp. Page 94.
Gowry. Page 4.
Hanover area of Mesozoic.
Jeanpaulia Miinsteriana, Ung.
Jet. Page 86.
Laccopteris, Presl. Pp. 38, 41, 127.
L. Carolinensis, (Em. spec.). Pp. *102, 127.
Figs. 11, 12.
L. elegans, Presl. Page 102.
L. elegans (Em. spec.),Presl. Pp.*105,127. Plate LI, Fig. 6.
L. Emmonsi (Em. spec.). Pp. *102, 127. Plate XLVIII,
Figs. 6, 7. ;
L. Miinsteri, Schenk. Pp. 102, 127.
Lepacyclotes circularis, Emmons. Page*ll19. Plate XLIX,
Fig. 8. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 130; plate 3, fig. 4.
Lepacyclotes ellipticus, Emmons. Page*l18. Plate LU, Fig.
4. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,’’ page 129, fig. 98.
Lepidodendron, Emmons. Page *117. Plate LIV, Fig. 10.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 124, fig. 93.
Lepidopteris Stuttgartensis, Schimp. Page 125.
Lignite. Page 86. ;
Lonchopteris, Brongt. Page 53.
L. rugosa, Brongt. Page 54.
L. oblongus (Em. spec.). Pp. *103, 123. Plate XLIX, Fig. 1.
L. Rohlii, Andra. Page 54.
L. Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pp. *53 to 54; 103, 123.
XXVIII, Figs. 1,2; Plate X XTX, Figs. 1 to 4.
Los Bronces, Flora of. Page 96.
Lycopodites uncifolius, Phillips. Page 89,
L. Williamsoni, Brongt. Page 89.
Macropterigium, Schimp. Pp. 73, 74.
M. Bronnii, Schimp. Page 74.
M. Schenkii, Schimp. Page 74.
Macroteniopteris crassinervis, Feist. Pp, *22 to 23. Plate
V, Fig. 5; Plate VI, Figs. 1, 2.
M. gigantea, Schenk. Pp. 21, 22, 127.
M. lata, Schimper. Pp. 21, 22. :
M. magnifolia (Rogers), Schimper. Pp. *18 to 22; 12, 13, 23,
70, 104, 123, 127. Plate II, Fig. 3; Plate III, Figs. 1 to 3;
Plate IV, Figs. 1 to 4; Plate V, Figs. 1 to 4.
Marnes irisées of Blackheath. Page 13.
Meraniopteris augusta, Heer. Page 44,
Mertensia. Pp. 35, 41.
Mertensides, gen. nov. Pp. *35, 40.
M. bullatus (Bunb. spec.)? Pp. *35 to 39; 47, 49, 94, 123, 125.
Plate XV, Figs. 2 to 5; Plate XVI, Figs. 1 to 3; Plate
XVII, Figs. 1 to 2; Plate XVIII, Figs. 1,2; Plate XIX,
Fig. 1.
M. distans, spec. nov. Pp. *39 to 40; 95. Plate XV, Fig. 1.
Mesozoic of Virginia. Pp. 1-9.
Pp. 2, 3.
Page 120.
Plate XLIX,
Plate
INDEX.
Mesozoic of Virginia, groups of stratain. Pp. 1, 2.
Midlothian. Page 4.
Neeggerathia striata, Emmons. Pp. 88, *118, 125. Plate
LIU, Fig. 1; Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 127, fig. 96.
Nematophyllum, F. and W. Page 17.
Neuropteris linneefolia, Bunb. Pp. 13, 24, *25, 29, 104.
N. pachyrachis, Schimp. Pp. 95, 127. :
N. Schoenliniana, Schimp. Pp. 32, 95.
Neuropteris, species? Emmons. Page *104. Plate XLIX,
Fig. 2; Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” p. 102, fig, 71.
North Carolina, Older Mesozoic Flora of. Pp. 97-128.
Odontopteris, Brongt. Page 36.
O. tenifolius, Emmons. Page *105. Plate XLIX, Fig. 7.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ p. 105, plate 3, fig. 5.
Older Mesozoic Flora of North Carolina. Pp. 97-128.
Otozamites Beanii (L.and H.), Schimp. Page 118.
O. Carolinensis (Em. spec.). Page *117. Plate LU, Fig. 6.
Pachyphyllum, Sap. Pp. 88, 89.
P peregrinum (L. & H.), Schimp. Page 108.
P. Williamsoni (Brongt.), Schimp. Page 89.
Pachypteris, spec.? Emmons. Page *109. Plate LI, Fig. 5.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 112, fig. 80.
Palisade Area of Older Mesozoic. Pp. 5, 6.
Palissya Braunii (Em. spec.), Endl. Pp. *107, 127. Plate L,
Figs. 1, 2; Plate LI, Fig. 1.
P. Carolinensis (Em. spec.; Pp. 109, 127. Plate LI, Fig. 5.
. P.conferta, Feist. Pp. 106, 127.
P. diffusa (Em. spec.). Pp. 106, 126,127. Plate LI, Fig. 4.
Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 105, plate 3, fig. 2.
P. Indica, Feist. Page 107.
Pecopteris bullata, Bunb. Pp. 36, 37, 102, 125, 126.
P. Carolinensis, Emmons. Page*102. Plate XLIX, Figs. 1,
12. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 100, fig. 68 and plate 4,
figs. 1; 2.
P. faleatus, Emmons. Pp. 44, *102. Plate XLVIII, Figs. 6,
7. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 100, plate 4, figs. 5, 9. -
P. gleichenoides, Old. & Mor. Page 94.
P. gracilis, Heer. Page 40.
P. Haiburnensis, Lindl. & Hut. Page 94.
P. lobifolia, Lindl. & Hut. Page 36.
P. Miinsteriana, Sternb. Page 44.
P. obtusifolia, Lindl. & Hut. Page 37.
P. rarinervis, spec. nov. Pp. *48 to 49; 94. Plate XXVI, Figs.
3, 4.
P. Stuttgartensis Brongt. Pp. 125, 126.
P. truncata, Germar. Page 47.
P. Whitbiensis, Brongt. Pp. 27, 28, 52, 94.
P. Williamsoni, Brongt. Page 24.
Pheenicopsis, Heer. Page 90.
Pinus strobus. Page 87.
Pittsylvania Area of Older Mesozoic. Pp. 4, 5, 6.
Podozamites, Fr. Braun. emend. Pp. 77, 95, 111.
P. angustifolius, Schenk. Pp. 78, 95.
P. Emmonsi (Em. spec.). Pp.*77 to 78; 79, 95, 110, 127. Plate
XXXII, Fig. 2.
P. lanceolatus, Emmons. Pp.77,78,*110. Plate LUI, Fig.
2. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 116, plate 3, fig. 7.
P. lanceolatus, Schimp. Page 78.
P. lanceolatus minor, Heer. Page 128.
P. longifolius, Emmons. Page *111. Plate LIT, Fig. 5.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 116, fig. 83.
P. tenuistriatus (Rogers’ spec.) Pp. *78 to 79; 5, 95.
XLOU, Figs. 2 to 5.
Pseudodanopsis, gen. nov. Pp. 58 to 59; 95, 96.
P. nervosa, spec. nov. Pp. *61 to 62; 115. Plate XXII, Figs.
1, 2.
Plate
143
P. reticulata, spec. nov. Pp. *59 to 60; 62, 116. Plate XXX,
Figs. 1 to 4.
Pterophyllum, Brongt. Page 63.
P. equale, Nat. Pp. 65, 111.
P. affine, Nat. Page *66. Plate XXII, Figs. 2 to 4.
P. Andreanum, Schimp. Pp. 67, 114, 125.
P. Blasii, Schimp. Page 104,
P. Bronnii, Schenk. Page 74.
P. Carterianum, Old. Page 74.
P. decussatum (Em. Spec.). Pp. *67, *111,125. Plate XLII,
Fig. 2; Plate LI, Fig. 2.
. delicatulum, Newb. Page 66.
distans, Mor. Page 74.
Footeanum, Feist. Pp.74, 95.
. giganteum, Schenk. Page 74.
. Humboldtianum, Dunk. Page 111.
. imbricatum, Ett. Page 68.
. inequale, spec. nov. Pp. *64 to 65; 114. Plate XXXVI,
Fig. 1.
P. Jegeri. Page 111.
P.Kingianum, Feist. Page 74.
P. longifolium, Brongt. Pp. 64, 65, 67, 125.
P. longifolium, Andre. Pp. 65, 67, 114.
P. Lyellianum, Dunk. Page 112.
P. Meriani, Heer. Page 68.
P. Morrisianum, Old. Page 74.
P. pectinatum (Em. spec.). Page *112. Plate LIU, Fig. 4.
P. Preslanum, Bronn. Page 73.
P. princeps, Old. & Mor. Page 66.
P. propinquum, Schenk. Page 66.
P. Rajmahalense, Mor. Page 66.
P.robustum, Emmons. Pp. 74, 113, *116. Plate LIV, Figs.
5, 6, 7.
P. spatulatum (Em. spec.). Page *114.
Pterozamites Blasii, Schimp. Page 104.
P. decussatus, Emmons. Pp.65, *67, 90, *111, 125. Plate
XLII, Fig. 2; Plate LI, Fig. 2. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”
page 117; plate 3, fig. 1. J
P. gracilis, Emmons. Pp.73, *113. Plate LIV, Fig.5. Em-
mons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ p. 118, fig. 86.
P. linearis, Emmons. Page *114. Plate LIV, Fig. 2.
mons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ p. 120, fig. 87.
P. obtusifolius, Emmons. Page *112. Plate LIV, Fig. 4.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 118, fig. 85.
P. obtusus, Emmons. Pp. 73, *113. Plate LIV, Fig. 1.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol., page 119, fig. 86a.
P. pectinatus, Emmons. Page *112. Plate LIU, Fig. 4.
Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” p. 117, fig. 84.
P. Spatulatus, Emmons. Pp. 69,*114. Plate LIL, Fig. 6.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 120, fig. 88.
Rajmahal Group, Age of. Page 123.
Rajmahal Group, Flora of. Page 96.
Richmond Area of Older Mesozoic. Pp. 2, 3, 4, 6.
Richmond Coal Field. Pp.3, 7, 8, 9.
Sagenopteris Mantelli, Schenk. Page 110.
S. rhoifolia, Presl. Pp. *63, 104. Plate XXX, Fig. 5.
S. rhoifolia (Em. spec.) Presl. Page *104. Plate XLIX,
Fig. 5.
Salisburia, Sm. Pp. 85, 86.
Saportea, F.& W. Page 86.
Schizoneura, Schimp. Page 16.
S. herensis, Schimp. Pp. 17, 95.
S. lateralis (L. & H.), Schimp. Page 17.
S meriani, Heer. Page 17.
S. planicostata (Rogers spec.). Page *14.
S. species? Pp.*16,95. Plate I, Fig. 3.
Nit hhy
Lac]
Plate LIL, Fig. 6.
Em-
Plate I, Fig. 1.
144
S. Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pp. *17, 93, 95. Plate I, Figs. 4
to 6.
Sphenoglossum quadrifoliatum, Emmons. Page*120. Plate
LII, Fig. 3. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 134; plate 5, fig. 2.
Sphenolepis Kurriana, Schenk. Page 110.
S. Sternbergiana, Schenk. Page 110.
Sphenopteris Egyptiaca, Emmons. Pp.98, *99, Plate
XLVI, Fig. 8. Emmons, ‘‘Am.Geol.,” page 36, fig. 8.
S. obtusiloba, Andre. Page 106.
8S. Rossertiana, Presl. Pp. 94, 106.
Sphenozamites, Brongt. Pp. 79, 80, 95.
S. latifolius, Sap. Page 83.
S. Rogersianus, spec. noy. Pp. *80to 84; 95. Plate XLII,
Fig.1; Plate XLIV, Figs. 1,2; Plate XLV, Figs. 1, 2.
S. Rogersianus (Em. spec.). Page *98. Plate XLIX, Fig. 4.
S. Rossii, Zigno. Page 83.
Steierdorf, Flora of. Page 96.
Strangerites obliquus, Emmons. Pp. 62, *115.
Fig. 8. Emmons, ‘Am, Geol.,” page 121, fig. 89.
S. planus, Emmons. Pp. 60, *116. Plate LIV, Fig. 3.
mons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 122, fig. 90.
Table of the Older Mesozoic Plants of North Carolina.
122 to 123.
Table of the Older Mesozoic Plants of Virginia.
Teniopteris glossopteroides, Newb. Page 62.
T. lata, Old. & Mor. Page 22.
T. magnifolia, Rogers. Page 103.
Theta, Flora of, Page 96.
Trias of North Carolina.
Undetermined Cones.
Plate XLVIII, Fig. 1.
Undetermined Fern, Emmons. Page *105. Plate LIV, Fig. 9.
Plate LIV,
Em-
Pp.
Pp. 92 to 93.
Page 100.
Page *91, Plate XLVJU, Fig. 3;
°
INDEX.
Undetermined Fern, Emmons. Page*l0& Plate LI, Fig. 6.
Undetermined Plant, Emmons, Page*119. Plate LI, Fig.
2. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 131, fig. 99.
Undetermined Stem. Page*91. Plate XLVIII, Fig. 5.
Walchia angustifolia, Emmons. Pp. 98, *99. Plate XLIX,
Fig. 10. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 35, plate 3, fig. 3.
W. brevifolia, Emmons. Pp. 89, 107,110. Plate LIII, Fig.
3. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” page 107, fig. 74.
W. diffusus, Emmons. Pp. *106, 126. Plate LI, Fig.4.
Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,”’ page 105, pl. 3, fig. 3.
W. gracile, Emmons. Pp. 89, *108, 110. Plate L, Fig. 3.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” page 108, fig. 75. ;
W. longifolius, Emmons. Page *107. Plate L, Figs. 1, 2;
Plate LI, Fig.1. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ pp. 105, 106, figs.
72,73, and pl, 4a.
W. variabilis, Emmons. Pp. 89, *108.
Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,”’ p. 108, fig. 76.
Zamia gigas, Lindl. & Hut. Page 91.
Z. pecten, Lindl. & Hut. Pp. 68, 73.
Z. tawina, Lindl. & Hut. Page 68.
Zamites distans, Presl. Page 77.
Z. Dunkerianus, Andre. . Page 72.
Z. gracilis, Andre. Page 68.
Z. gramineus, Bunb. Page 115.
Z. lanceolatus, Lindl. & Hut. Pp. 77, 78.
Z. obtusifolius, Rogers. Pp. 72, 115.
Z. proximus, Feist. Page 111.
Z. tenuistriatus, Rogers. Page 78.
Zamiostrobus Emmonsi (Em. spec.). Page*117. Plate LU,
Fig. 5. Emmons, Am. Geol.,’’ p. 123, fig. 92 a.
Z. Virginiensis, spec. nov. Page *85, Plate XLVI, Figs.
4, 5.
Plate L, Fig. 4.
" -
DAN ity
; nn! ; | iy i whert
pe i et mm
snail as vb uelltecal Me ,
ace a cee 0 Fy awh
1a
. a " Mii
Mies Ne
me ee wy
i fea 4 Avg St is 7m Aeey Pi V4 ia fn he
; : i \ hi iy Paint decay on lel le Ae Ct? eh Ivgl Ri Mi a ry tale a
, hyo A j wa 1 y i ' i 7 '
Th La f i [ a TY nie iH Ae ere Ay Meer W.’ ;
fy i ei) Fy ve
Lin i Sie ae yy ae
Tes a at Hl Fad Se rae oa 1Ade AN My en \ 5M qe anne TL in
bh De a ay Dat hy Ah th Ma Hi ) Oy Ave 8
pe PAR an | NY PRONE Pe Aycan kath Mi We Guam,
NALD t ee f Mai tabs, : hay i ' \nde tia
. [ ‘ ! | iy ea Pa ho yl ‘
si Sh noe
Al eet
et pode Mink la te yt / h t i '; i ay }
‘4 etcmmane ile! My f= i ! f F Ly a i er, Mi uaymer k
A
*
‘a Au ener ii) pt
aula va Wai ,
4 De int
ee mF Mate sy ek { ee Vg ia) dy ‘ Aion, Ned ( jhiaed Ay hy / -
Rar l ‘ bs’ a \ | WD er i ; marl ) Waly *
WO TA ii ell ‘us oy nt } 1 Ota UE (pone wnt Pe ee Pe : ;
IAM ier a
NN, a Mi
PLATE 1.
Fig. 1. Schizonewra planicostata. (Calamites planicostatus, Rogers).
Fic. 2. Rhizome of Equisetum Rogersi.? Page 11.
Fic. 3. Internal cast of Schizoneura, spec.? Page 16.
Fies. 4-6. Schizoneura Virginiensis, spec. noy. Page 17.
Fic. 4. Portion of a stem showing several nodes.
Fic. 5. Fragment of a smaller stem with broader leaves
Fic. 6. Leaf of full size of the broader kind.
Pages 14 to 16.
LORA PL. I
SS SSS =
= SS SSeS
SS OS SSS —
Sr SS ={
SSS = SS = =>
\\ SSS SSS SSS SS SSS eee
SS SS SS SS SS SSS
t
SCHIZONEBEURA-EQUISETUM
ae i)
*
r Aw
Via ea
oy
fi
a9
MP ae)
hy tee
PLATE II.
Figs. 1, 1a, 2. Hquisetum Rogersi, Schimper. Pages 10 to 13.
Fic. 1. Impression of a large stem showing nodes.
Fig. 1a. Portion of the same magnified to show details.
Fra. 2. Impression of a smaller stem on which the nodes are absent.
Fic. 3. A young plant, natural size, of Macroteniopteris magnifolia, Rogers. Page 19.
“
IU ME
i ti i
Ny hs
at
‘ a
PLATE SII
Fies. 1-3. Macroteniopteris magnifolia, Rogers (Schimper). Pages 18 to 22,
Fig. 1. Leaf of the smaller kind, of natural size.
Fic. la. Probable termination of leaf given in Fig. 1.
Fic. 2. Young leaf of natural size.
Fic. 3. Tip of leaf of medium size, showing a portion of the nervation.
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PIL. IIt
U.S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NIFOLIA
aul
TL
M A‘
MACROTANIOPTERIS
fees | Kal i
Vea td ihn abe
REA Ae wet
na he ete My
jy me
Hs
Vi i
’ Ce |
¢
pat
Te Phig it
sy,
Hanah 534 Saki aon
MAN CAC NAL) ran]
.
ih
ql
j y fh
fl { i
A al ; p pi ‘ as Ad Rif ho itt, od
io antl Cl OR LAL eh aan aA Pet RACIST AF agile eye Sage
ar ‘ en a qirines\ eae it Ayre
ee mn
;
Ry idle a he
i
¥ 4.9
Di, Peas
ECA,
ne fen Pye Spode) fi
PHATE Dy,
Figs. 1-4. Macroteniopteris magnifolia, (Rogers) Schimper. Pages 18 to 22.
Fic. 1. Leafshowing supposed fruit-dots on the stem, and at a, b, and c, the variations in the nerva-
tion.
Fic. 1a. Portion of the stem of Fig. 1, magnified to show more distinctly the supposed fruit-dots.
Fic. 2. Leaf of unusual shape, of natural size.
Fics. 3and 4. Much reduced outlines, to show the two normal shapes of the entire leaves.
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL IV
OGICAL SURVEY
GROL
s
7
MAGNIFOLIA
CROTANIOPTERIS
PLATE V (double).
Figs. 1-4. Macroteniopteris magnifolia, (Rogers) Schimper. Pages 18 to 22.
Fies. 1-3. Parts of the same leaf of M. magnifolia, of the largest size commonly attained.
Fic. 1. Base of the leaf.
Fic. 2. Middle portion of the same.
Fic. 3. Summit of the same.
Fig. 4. Nervation of the same magnified to show the compound nature of the lateral nerves.
Fic. 4a. A lateral nerve of Fig. 4 still more magnified.
Fia. 5. Macroteniopteris crassinervis, Feist. Pages 22 to 23. Fragment of the frond of the largest size.
LOGICAL SURVEY
MACK
OLDER MESCZOIC FLORA PL. V
U & GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OLDER MES
MESCZOIC FLORA PL. V
rROLeNio}
MAURY 1OPT RR):
PAA nay a
Fias. 1, 2. Macroteniopteris crassinervis, Feist. Pages 22 to 23.
Fic. 1. A leaf of the smallest size.
Fig. 2. A leaf of the maximum size.
Figs. 3, 3a. Acrostichides linnwefolius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fic. 3. Represents a portion of a pinna from the lower part of a sterile frond.
Fic. 3a. Pinnule of the same magnified to show the nervation. «
fi
i dl
Cs
AndAae
= oe oe
\ WW by YP p
, | ¥ . t» , é :
We 7 ay Oh, \" WN
SS ij A
Hh fia:
My ‘ll = | babtaees -
; ———
—
AUNUNUEES
US
——_—
NY
aS |
OX 7 <€ te)
\ VY SX Hh /I \\)
~ 77 KK, My i y
WY < 4 / i
~S a ie ; f
7
ina
;
} ih @ = Dw
} .
N 4 JF
ne
(
NY a
Y Hl j
A
|
Ae,
Sf Bie
S¥ if
K\
RY
&
= =
y, i| /|/ |
Hl =
i f H|
Widd
i]
3S,
SS Lh
Ss
S .¢ LIS
. PN. , 2
~
|
i)
I.
| io
Zl) |
’
ny
hy
jive ui i si why |
eg) Pe
Nt hf Ig vil mn
i + iets
ehh
¥ af Wis he Pies “it ; sae eile) Wie
JER AH PARLE amare CH Ne Ub nk IY Weis oy a os
Scene (i leet We Sea Le um, 1 Pike '
i ‘
¥ Miser ig! :
PAWN Ate de ie y
yee ‘il A WAS ru
Hi DON Aa
2 ee
i nae
Poe A Eve bale
Fies. 1-4. Acrostichides linnwefolius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fic. 1. Ultimate pinnw from the upper part of a large compound pinna, showing the pinnules,
all sterile. *
Fic. 2. Ultimate pinne from the lower part of the same compound pinna from which Fig. 1 was
taken, showing fertile and sterile pinnules on the same pinna.
Fic. 3. Tip of a fertile ultimate pinna.
Fic. 4. Portion of a fertile ultimate pinna, showing the transition in form from sterile to fertile
pinnules.
FiG. 5. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. noy. Pages 33 to 34,
Fic. 5, Shows a portion of the lower part of the frond.
Sp
Ls
0” Gy
Gg
y
c XY
Y
Le
yy ey
_ OI
SMLYAYL LYS
3 LAE
~
Weis
oe
PLACE avila
Figs. 1, 1a. Acrostichides linneefolius (Bun. species). Pages 25 to 29,
Fic.
Fig.
1. A portion of a sterile compound pinna from the upper part of a frond.
la. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation.
Figs. 2,36. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
FiG.
Fic.
Fig.
Fic.
Fic.
2. Terminal portion of a large ultimate pinna.
2a. Pinnule of Fig. 2 magnified to show nervation.
3. Portion of the upper part of a compound pinna when the ultimate pinne are passing into
pinnules.
3a. Magnified pinna from the lower part of Fig. 3.
3b. Magnified piuna from the upper part of Fig. 3.
: | : : WY) ,
x — » 4 \\
X < y) \X
\ NY, |/ K/ I \
\ ‘ \ _ 5 \\ >
\\ \ la ‘ |/
\\ \ Fa
Ay y
7 1
i W/; AY y Vs ci
F y
A I \ y 1 ae \CF (
Z\ Gi
i
W<-
an
g)
yN
\
P 7
AWSS
Dan \\
Ges
ae Y
(
7 7
(
f
\, ES
‘ ———
ay oy \
‘My,
Ns i
<2 =
——_—=
a a
\
\
S \ 4
» \ = \
: \\ ¢ \ / : \X \\
‘ . \\ \ \y
N \G \ \ \ iu
\ \ \ \
. \7
\ \ Wy), \\\ \ = \
> \ \, \\\ \X
AY \G \\ \\
: NY \ \\¢ \Waa \ 4 ee eS
x \G \ = = SS — <<
\ } ss .
| i
. i! \
iY y
Wy
/ ay \
yf
A, yj
JO
Uh \as i \\
, CH
y, {
PLATE IX.
Figs. 1, 1a. Acrostichides linneefolius (Bunb. species). Pages 25 to 29.
Fig. 1. A fertile compound pinna,
Fic. la. Pinnules of the same magnified to show fructification and nervation.
U. § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. IX
ACROSTICHIDES LINN AIFOLIUS
? - ) Soke te Ss ; fi sal
q Aa 2 hi oe : ; eas
i
i)
Fadi
oy nig
Papa Thx.
Figs. 1,1a,1b,1¢. Acrostichides densifolius, spec. nov. Pages 34 to 35.
Fic. 1. Portion of the normal frond or compound pinna.
Fic. 1a. Magnified pinnules from the lower portion and Fig. 1b magnified pinnules from the upper
portion of Tig. 1, to show nervation.
Fic. 1c. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show the partial imbrication.
Fig. 2. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov. Pages 33 to 34. Shows a very slender variety of this
species.
SA eas
REN GWE
SN a SIN
SF (N89 SANIINGN
WZ VAS SSG) SHIN
BD PUCRed
li
ACROSTICHIDES
ih
i, =
ee Ce &
S: hi
» ’ j =
ie ie 7, Noes » e xc ae
: rs Gary ee
ant ’ : i :
rm A :
1 hes \ ; uA
’ Fi ;
7 = cs
= ss y i co “Vi
a i 5 r P
ri
S +? “ : E
‘ oe.
' i
f. . Pe
‘ = i = /
et
y .
i c a * . t
i a i
me
on
N
, «
i i 4
is r -
i
@ r ' a pit i a
el i re
x.
, 4 J] =
i S
1
g
cy at 7
i a
i . A .
" , =
t io =
iar
Ap ! sy
1
"y Ms
. 4
, { S
7
4 2 hi
Ss 7 it y 4
i»
’ I
UT ’
ie. ¢ 1
er p> =
PLATE XS:
Fias. 1-3. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Fic. 1. Portion of a compound sterile pinna showing pinuules of the largest size.
Fic. la. Pinnules of the same magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 2. Portion of the lower part of a compound sterile pinna to show the small size of the pin-
nules there.
Tig. 3. Fragment of a fertile ultimate pinna showing abnormal form of pinnules.
Fic. 4. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov. Pages 33 to 34. Shows a very slender variety of this spe-
cies that is not uncommon,
Se =
SS 4)
SA Lat
N
ACROSTICHIDES
ee sl ee \ oe): ; sf
De ee oe ee ee nt
yt 22 ee we... © . -
. eS 4 4 g “ ¥
a2 , ee ee ad oy it bs *
a) id
Pea
a De ee r
PAW ee:
Fies. 1,2. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. noy. Pages 29 to 32.
Fic. 1. A common form of the sterile pinnules with prolonged tips.
Fig. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation,
Fic. 2. Portion of the upper part of a compound sterile pinna, where the ultimate pinna are
becoming simply lobed.
Fics. 3,3a. Acrostichides microphyllus, spec. nov. Pages 33 to 34.
Fig. 3. Gives the largest form seen of this species.
Fic. 3a. Pinnule of Fig. 3, magnified to show nervation.
U..S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XII
ah
ACROSTICHIDES
.
PLATE XTi:
Figs. 1,2. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Fig. 1. Represents the upper part of a compound sterile pinna where the pinnw have become
simple pinnules.
Fig. la. Pinnule of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 2. Upper portion of a compound fertile pinna where the ultimate pinn are simply lobed.
Figs. 3, 3a, 3b. Acrostichides rhombifolius, var. rarinervis. Pages 32 to 33.
Fic. 3. Portion of a normal, sterile, compound pinna.
Fic. 3a. Pinnules trom the lower part of Fig. 3.
Fig. 3b. Pinnules from the upper part of Fig. 3 magnified to show nervation.
gs
U. S GHOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XIII
ACROSTICHIDES
PLATE XPV:
Fias. 1,2. Acrostichides rhombifolius, spec. nov. Pages 29 to 32.
Fig. 1. Fragment of a large fertile compound pinna of common occurrence.
Fie. 1a. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show nervation and fructification.
Fic, 2. Fragment of a compound fertile pinna showing pinnules more rounded than those of Fig.
1; also common.
Fig. 2a. Pinnules of Fig. 2 magnified to show nervation and fructification.
Y
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. XIV
SSS
Wy)
= =
U. § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
yy
MBIFOLIUS
RHO
ACROSTIC RT Dirks
na
iby el eit) pote
Pay Act Ey es
Fries. 1, la. Mertensides distans, spec. nov. Pages 39 to 40.
Fic. 1. Portion of a compound pinna of the normal kind.
Fic. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1 magnified to show the fructification.
Fics. 2-5. Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39.
Fic. 2. Portion of a compound fertile pinna of the most common kind, taken from the lower part
of the pinna.
Fig. 3. Portion of an ultimate sterile pinna, taken from the lower part of the compound pinna.
Fic. 3a. Pinnule of Fig. 3 magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 4. Portion of a compound sterile pinna, showing large heteromorphous pinnules.
Fic. 5. Portion of a heteromorphous pinnule of the largest size.
U. § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XV
SS
QV >
i : aS s d
% EEL Go “= | od
PHY
U.S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
MERTENSIDES BULLATUS
PLAIN X Exes
Fic. 1. Mertensides bullatus (Bunb. species). Pages 35 to 39. Portion of a fertile compound pinna,
showing the sori and nervation as seen when the npper surface of the plant is presented to
view.
I'ias. 2-5. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 41 to 45.
lia. 2. Portion of the lower part of a compound sterile pinna, showing d+ eply-lobed pinnules.
Fig. 2a. Portion of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Fig. 3. Upper part of a sterile pinna, showing partially united piunules.
Fic. 4. Portion of a sterile pinna, with pinnules having a very broad midrib.
ire. 5, Summit of a sterile pinna.
U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. XIX
\ \ = | WE
ZS
—=,
=>
HN VAIN
GN
a
Wy
D))
Ss moe
| y) ) i yo
Wj;
)\ \e eth \ iff SS
Nav Bell eVA\SV-\ Sho \ee 3 me ane |e
At a |S 8) se ee. G
) f
yoo s oe) Ms
Ss
'
@ pohle Ba, ve . .
es av sai" oy. Sg sae a de a
4 I
y ny a ee Bites. a Te)
COP hae fA Pw “2 wv rite
. : Sm i ¥ > ns e ie
= . i ~ 1.
,
. ( —
‘ ive
i d by
4
S or > - os
: at 24
a
, |
2
y | .
if’ +},
i ey
. er) > :
es
Ss a
7] a : ¥f :
.
y 4
i ; F
i. a ’
J
- Pa 2
+ .
t
‘
; . <
;
;
‘
‘
te) - u
M Try
‘ ia
iJ u i \ *
| aS a
, 5 ag, i
\ } ¥ a,
> aa >
A : vs Ce as ‘
: 1 ; ee
1 - aye be =
f ua) 7
J ‘ — i y
P 4 Fa) i
4 = 9 f
« 7 aon
By 4
1 tl 4 «
7 - Ui
. ¥ 1 . .
x Tea! . i
ry oe eee NA Pg oe ae
: EA } i ay We,
ce ee eel, re re a =e) Lett j | a a ae ee Noy
PLATE XXeVe
Fics. 1b, la. Asterocarpus Virginiensis, var. obtusilobus. Pages 45 to 46.
Fic. 1. Shows a form with broad rounded lobes and a fine, closely crowded nervation.
Fic. la. Pinnules of Fig. 1, magnified to show the mervation.
Fics. 2-6. Asterocarpus platyrachis, spec. noy. Pages 46 to 47.
Fic. 2. Upper part of a compound sterile pinna.
Fic. 3. Portion of a fertile compound pinna with fully fructified pinnules.
Fic. 3a. Pinnules of Fig. 3, magnified to show the sori.
Fras. 3) and 3c. Single sori of somewhat different form, much magnified.
Fic. 4. A portion of the lower part of 1 compound sterile pinna.
Fig. 4a. Pinnules of Fig. 4, magnified to show the nervation.
Fic. 5. Fragment of pinna showing fertile and sterile pinnules on the same pinns,
Fia. 6. Summit of a sterile compound pinna.
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XXV
U. § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ASTEROCARPUS
Ree tore Oe a
Sead” aa Oy Seah tae
ard Rr ea
: ig aN
ae ve ry
tan? AS -
j bs we if) 2 ‘
7 t Deer)
on yet | . i PLNe
Cm, ‘)
Spo a
i > eo *
vee
a
a. 4
. .
’
> ad
ar ee
Ms ¥ = i
é >=!
ae a j
~ I a ° eis
ORR: ‘ = .,°
y PE | . = - 7 e<
aes : '
7 '
- S -,y ¥
aw :, SRSS SE
RSS
rveit ST Cpe
CRD ELUM
WN y
N yams
NOON
rt
Ea TA MAN AMR UA PAL?
fl, Ds AADAC (i “it
¢ MOY
A
QAVNSS
ORE
PMS ern tN
Daa Mi
Yi ie tit Lis Y 3 SAAR
AD
F
ROMAN
QM ANE
WOM
ND ,
alas mtR lin
FOO AYA
Y
i eaias
Aka
Sn
ANY me Cay Za)
Be
LONCHOPTERIS
( LDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL
nt
<
VIRGINIENSIS
XXVIiI
N
RN)
Sai
097
hk
—
Tr
bs
s
a
PLATE XXIX.
Fries. 1-4. Lonchopteris Virginiensis, spec. nov. Pages 53 to 54,
Fic. 1. Portion of frond with normal, rounded pinnules.
Fic. la. Pinnule of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fiac. 2. Portions of pinnz, with normal acute pinnules.
Fig. 3. Portion of a pinna with pinnules of the largest size.
Fia. 4. Portions of pinnz showing broad rounded pinnules,
Figs. 5, 5a. Cladophlebis subfalcata, spec. nov. Page 49,
Fic. 5. Shows the normal character.
Fig. 5a. Pinnule of Fig. 5, magnified to show nervation.
_U. 8 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL
Ui)
W
—_i
ESS
em
SSS
BSS
Ay
S.
SS
a
SS
<—S
Ss
PACS |
AGB GE,,
et ow
Bee
oS
SS
=
at
Se
=
SS
ESS
Nisera) wins
RENE
IN ASEAN
My SAN
NHN RSNY
NY HOYRNY PNY
YY GARY HAY
GRY IY tiny
=
Z
y
MY}
NARS oH
BANS it
Ni
ANG
ANY) CO)
LONCHOPTERIS-CLADOPHLEBIS
XxX1IxX
my
Seal? * PA MA
y a 4 . 2
ay ian rin i mn oy We ihe wi noe Ak
x
\ iar eh ha Pa] eae
hey tea
Was eee ath
‘Mane
‘ n Phils
rt gt
eer ate
a) el
WA Sur rs’ wis
_
yy
nt . ie hy
PHATE XX xX;
Fias. 1-4a. Pseudodaneopsis reticuluta, spec. nov, Pages 59 to 60.
FG. 1. Portion of the frond restored, showing pinnules of large size.
Fic. 2. Fragment of a very large pinnule.
Fic. 2a. Portion of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
l'1g. 5. Portion of a frond with pinnules of the smaller kind.
Fic. 4. Upper part of a compound pinna with small pinnules.
Pic. 4a. Portion of a pinnule of Fig 4, much magnified to show neryation,
Fig. 5.° Sagenopteris rhoifolia, Pr. Page 63. Fragment of a leaflet.
Fic. 6. Dicranopteris, Spec.(?). Page 63. Gives a fragment of a leaf like Dicranopteris.
Zrpp,.ffyy
SSS ey
CON
Cw
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XXX
U. 8 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OPHYLLUM
DICRAN
SAGENOPTERIS-
PSEUDODAN AOPSIS-
gare |
aes ‘
Na) ah n ' '
Le Le ak iy wed! ‘ : 4
mT) ve ig yee, MrT S ni tay is OY ae ony “
, { finial ;
, Alle \ a i
Gud fy hh BY vp ene ;
| ? h a te WT a r
) { F ti Di el yen y
ei Pa bre hgiehe vigil tr nie ily
oan Mey A mi hy ry 7 fee) Di i ” Dia ty?
r 1 i 1) ae n!
| ) Uiiee |
ASN ahh! Cale EYRE! nis AMYUNI 8
Soe igen. |, een
aah tc
>
ity Paty twa
i i i ; . :
é ‘ DRL AsO
Pb AsP ey eee.
Figs. 1,2. Pseudodanwopsis nervosa, spec. nov. Pages 61 to 63.
Fic. 1. Portion of the plant showing pinnules of normal size.
Fic. 2. Portion of the upper part of the plant.
Figs. 3,4. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. erpansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58,
Fia. 3. Portion of a small segment showing only the cross-bars of the nervation.
Fia. 4. Portion of a segment of normal size showing three teeth on the right-hand border and one
on the left-hand border.
XS ——
— = Za
PSEUDODAN Z#OPSIS-CLATHROPTERIS
ee ane : x Ry eat.” |
Te i aij sf 4 \ ta oe ai Satoh aay <
‘ ry ws ny ay
ba i ae eo a ae 4
$F ad
Sadat oe Lahey |,
ee Hesham Wee je To 7 a
ea iq@ntyeni Aide eaiilia e
PLATE XX X10.
Fic. 1. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58. Represents a segment with incom-
plete margins, but quite long.
Figs. 2-4. Pterophyllum affine, Nathorst. Pages 66 to 67.
Fig. 2. Fragment with the broadest leaflets.
Fig. 3. Fragment of leaf with average-sized leaflets,
Fig, 4. Fragment with leaflets of the narrowest kind.
US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY E OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XXXII
CLATHROPTERIS-PTHRROPHYLLUM
ise aie
fad nea Te Av seg fay
peccuioneny: Si Leet
ae yl Gh} ring ut ating
; cal udp eh + a
Jnl @ he ferinet +f
ahaa Wrcale A benthic ied al) i!
vl as nae, ut ws
biol ie
i x ¥
PLATE) XX Sriy
Fic. 1. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58. Shows the basal undivided part of
the frond.
Fic. 2, Podozamites Emmonsi (P. lanceolatus of Emmons). Pages 77 to 78. Gives a form with leatlets
rather narrower than the normal form given by Emmons.
Figs. 3-4a. Ctenophyllum taxinum, Lind. and Hut. Pages 67 to 68.
Fic. 3. Lower portion of a leaf.
Fic. 4. Upper portion of a leaf.
Fic. 4a. Leaflet of Fig. 4, magnified to show nervation.
te
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XXXIII
U.S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CLATHROPTERIS-PODOZAMITES-CTENOPHYLLUM
eae is ah a
PA os
“et; "a
af Shey
+4 errr “in wet u ce vile | mec Au yw! beg val
pre i nip bolt ise tte wt Your: “dino iki de dt nivpiet
iv Wien Hy, van Tay Sey ‘id + ebay treatant
Ph RG 1 Ment ed x wee dp Dv 4004 By i jorge j
$4 cu eo ib quae Ye bachyot
PLA TEx Xe Vv
Fig. 1. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap.
a large frond.
Figs. 2-4a. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73.
Fic. 2. Fragment of the lowest part of a leaf next to the leafless petiole,
Fic. 3. Fragment from the upper part of a leaf.
Fic. 4. Fragment from the middle part of a leaf.
Fic. 4a. Portion of Fig. 4, magnified to show nervation.
Pages 54 to 58. Portion of the undivided part of
aS
A ih
=
[
/ ]
\ Hy) » fy J Ih
Wit fi, |
| | yy / Ys |
Wi My if)
y y
y UH) |
ll
1 ee
a ui
: AAA,
1
a)
i
MNase See er etn Ey ee.
ie ri ey) i Shad ANG ee aban wee 2 eat"
ee es Oe ed eb
a
ares eee Cece nu me i gy
ia Pi
Uy 7 4 Wie aT Ma
q
PLAT HX Xe Ve
Fig. 1. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73. Fragment of the upper part of a large leaf.
Figs. 2,2a. Clathropteris platyphylla, var. expansa, Sap. Pages 54 to 58.
Fic. 2. Fragment of a very large segment.
Fig. 2a. Portion of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Pavaaa
ie OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XXxXV
U. 8. GHOLOGICAL SURVE
si —
oO a ea
\
CTENOPHYLLUM-CLATHROPTSRIS
Waa
ait ide
AM gt
ma ¥ a's
2 ae
y
barn
ia te4
Vy ) 4 ‘ »
: "
i am
1e TSO Vy a
Li t i
ne ra - -
ar ens: j
rv
{
1 ‘ a"
A ‘
ene OM > Or A ON
Se ire
ia wo AN
: ao) bret der i SE TS wl v3 ou } ait
- P Ty i “na uhearoh Ye
he ee ai arial
Shh ; “ ie Ja ae
fhetemyicn lay) teh eet at ae Beh igi) Voie) oF pers’ a ata kaw Tet, wy ah:
4
son PRard NT SY tA jel cablcaell ARE AO gal gs ly peng Nee
oe -
iy: pe
PLATED XXX YS.
Fics. 1,1a,1b,1e. Pterophyllum inequale, spec. nov. Pages 64 to 65.
Fic. 1. Leaf of normal kind.
Fic. la. Summit of Fig. 1.
Fig. 1b. Portion of a leaflet from the lower part of Fig. 1, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 1c. Portion of a leaflet from Fig. 1a, magnified to show nervation.
U.S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ; OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XXXVI
PTEROPHYLLUM INAQUALE
j ai
ei aN le eh re, Ce
emery Dale n J A }
Pe a ah Ga FN Me hy ha oe ¥
BL 2h A vo ae
Mest a Pos { te i
Liaw Un dal Heda, bY Wed qe tall eT red “ee yi. ae
ib ia f Se ed ata od Wiha accel Ae
: Se ra aaa el Pe a) ee a Se a, wie
pat a S airy, ie 4 as. 7 ‘ie
; ves a » AvarD oo i" yet taf * My ip ri 4 ha a rae ies A ees
eu , by } | i i i #7,
: ‘
PLATA xX Xvi:
Figs. 1-2. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73.
Fic. 1. Upper portion of a large leaf.
Fic. la. Portion of the petiole of Fig. 1.
Fia. 2. Fragment of a middle portion of a leaf, showing leaflets unusually distant.
ered
Bs: ; st 7 “a
' i. a
“nt. ¥. ¥ ay, aP A i hei
a oak . ‘per 2 vat a wd nue aici a ny
” - ds bs athe é ta , Y \ Ay yh see ald Hl by
} ye ‘ Pe] ; '
iw » vA wih tw Vint et ipes re aes EL ie ew A F m* yk dnt # Insohhane oh
ae 5 ke aad q lie Ty, ri nN ae ay ify see aia
a Tet oS Misa mill Nis Aiton) oa ones re
TH. At, iv 7 . ent ane ; Ay sa, Sabie yh ”
i ee ee te ae ale, tee) , - lube dt] & Weal eo el
Ay 4 { Haba Pave Mea ai . |
1 a | |
: i a eh Lan I i , | a J ee yeh conn a, uf La ae , ie
if oe yi As i Si oy Ve
a Oe ee, ley iat nt i J ure Piney 4 pa
ee tiny ae r rs)! ae ‘ ; AS it ; ay i ia
j a tf r
i i i ; f H * pe art Ds ae
An hi 7 y | ‘ i rr
va a4 ' er 4 ; “a
. Le} i 1 : 4 ; i |
c | | . Pee i,
1 J a 7 1 : - ih a : ie » r
i 5 il x
‘ i | | |
¥ ff va
| in i . ; i \ 40 see ean
n | ;
Vv - a Pa ’ i f : "ah, i 2
t | | |
f ; } | if |
F tr |
,
2 = i '
ee)
f | 2
: Fi
z 7 |
| :
i
Mi 4 ~ :
\
4 | r , 1
4 f J 1
‘ F ie Mo ini
| “ won
,
i
i
i
"
ee
: v
Pek ae
\¢ it
a
be
PLATE XKXViITE
Fics. 1-24. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Goepp. Pages 69 to 73.
Fig. 1. Summit of the large leaf given in Fig. 1, Plate XXXVII.
lic. 2. Upper portion of a leaf, showing the rounded form of the midrib on the under side.
Fic. 2a. Base and summit of a leaflet of Fig. 2, magnified to show nervation.
Fics. 3-5. Ctenophyllum truncatum, spec. nov. Pages 68 to 69.
Fia. 3. Upper portion of a leaf.
Fig. 4. Portion of a leaf, with the leaflets all broken at base.
Fig. 5. Shows natural position of leaflets in Fig. 4.
Sagi -<
a
Te :
=
os ;
Ory
,
i
ae a)
ats r
PLATE YX xXx.
Figs. 1-34. Clenophyllum grandifolium, spec. nov. Pages 73 to 76.
Fic. 1. Fragment of the lower part of the leaf, showing the great width of the flat stem.
Fig. 1a. Portion of Fig. 1, magnified to show the insertion of the nerves.
Fig. 2. Portion of the middle of a leaf with remote leaflets; also showing the thick epidermis of the
stem and the effect of it in increasing the apparent width of the stem.
Fig. 3. Fragment of the upper part of a leaf.
Fig. 3a. Portion of a leaflet of Fig, 3, magnified to show neryation.
Fic. 5. Ctenophyllum giganteum, spec. nov. Pages 76 to 77. Shows a portion of a leaflet of a huge Cteno-
phyllum. The basal portion of the leaflet is that given here.
ae
iP
CTENOPHYLLUM
s%
4 ) | 5 c ic
A iy " ,
a
i
tthe
4 An :
Ein ol i ates s a
PLATE XL,
Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. noy. Pages 73 to 76. Represents the lower portion of a very large
leaf of this plant. The leaflets extend to 12 and 18 inches in width.
U. §. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. XL
CTENOPHYLLUM GRANDIFOLIUM
in r
ie "Ve
mh rae a
rip
it) ay ;
aa Te 8 y
Py ie ai ft
fant i 4, . , Whey
iit Ds 4: ig , ; Sits pm
f) J am
yy Laie
We
Wy
VV om Wy oe!
te Ape nae
; oe ie
vel)
ie mat
1
fy i uit
Nahar)
A a
a ly ‘ i he Wii
PAU alien Se Bh
ah
iia
ae ‘i ni aa VA
K}
i" Woe Pats ‘
hare) aie des
of i 6, Ms 1"
me 1 mers pare
Ph
i er a
lib Ae
i ny
AN ae : ut f
PLATE XLI (double).
Figs. 1,2. Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. noy. Pages 73 to 76.
Fic. 1. Represents the middle portion of the same leaf whose base was given on Plate XL.
Fic. 2. Lower portion of the plant given on Plate XL
U. 8. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
a tS SO
CTENOPHYLLI
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XLI
DIFOLIUM
bt
aoa]
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL XLI
U. 6. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ween
nee we
cTENOPH yLLUM GRaNDiFonyy
nN
By eas fre
‘a Page
ie
= eka
‘i * |
| on ) ah | i vain.
eee? y sogtyl : LAN |
iy
‘ ae Minoo
j tA
4 /
i igi ee
ceabal
1
Be
vay
ray SAN
rae ts
an
tay)
PLATE XLII (double).
Fig. 1, la, 1b. Ctenophyllum grandifolium, spec. nov. Pages 73 to 76.
Fic. 1. Represents the summit of the same large leaf whose base is given on Plate XL, and middle
portion in Fig. 1, Plate XLI.
Fic. 1a. Represents the middle portion of a leaflet of Fig. 1, magnified to show the parallel posi-
tion of the nerve-bundles.
Fic. 1b. Represents a portion of the base of a leaflet of Fig. 1, still more magnified, to show the
complex nature and mode of splitting up of the nerve-bundles at their base.
Figs, 2-5. Podozamites tenuistriatus, spec. nov. Pages 78 to 79.
Fic. 2. Gives a fragment of a leaf of the largest form.
Fic. 3. Gives a portion of a leaf of normal size.
Fig. 3a. Leaflet of Fig. 3, magnified to show nervation.
Fic. 3b. Tip of Fig. 3a, still more magnified to show convergence of the nerves at their ends,
Tic. 4. Fragment of a plant showing insertions of leaflets perhaps flattened from above.
Fia. 5. Leaflet of largest size.
————
‘
wear
ray
Abas iy
i uy ae
Tit thime
‘fal
me tr
ied
phy ,
AT ayy SR Ah |
nay ni
PAT es
| * oe pi Ni
if i Are
ta
thw
i FA }
Tilia
Ve
my el eG
“Tg
gh
i
i Thea
eae i
‘ Ei ik mur wf : ve i} |
Nt ea | i y
a nt wy : ua i lg
my i Volts CP fed oan me se
hi Me pie
fine st
‘ u
Ni ai aR
j aa
ven
ib cons
f
ny a els
pains ‘ ef i ae
i Tye wah / oe Rie
san a a en Teal iW K
Hy]
a
i
pe rae
a Ni,
ot i gee
fla ney ee ee Din is
it ,
Py aa!
i
ae
a ay ; Mid
Hip) ie iM iy ayy: y
Data nt. Ary
Be i
PLATE, XL
Fig. 1, la. Sphenozamites Rogersianus, spec. nov. Pages 80 to 84.
Fic. 1. Summit of a leaf of medium size.
Fig. 1a. Belongs to the lowest leaflet on the right-hand side.
Fig. 2. Pterophyllum decussatum, Emmons. Page 67.
Fic. 2. Gives the insertion and basal Plate XLIV portions of two leaflets.
U. 8 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. XLIII
SPHENOZAMITES—PTEROPHYLLUM
PLATE XO L Vi:
Figs. 1-2). Sphenozamites Rogersianus, spec. nov. Pages 80 to 84.
Fig. 1. Portion of the middle part of a leaf of normal size.
Fic. 2. Neryation magnified to show the granulation.
Fic. 2a. Nervation magnified to show the complexity of the nerves and their mode of forking from
the base.
Fic. 2b. Nervation still more magnified to show the elongation of the dots into cross-bars.
Fic. 3. Podozamites tenuistriatus, spec. nov. Pages 78 to 79. Shows a form with leaflets broad near the
insertions.
Fias. 4-6. Cycadites tenuinervis, spec. nov. Page 84.
Fic. 4. Represents the upper part of a leaf.
Fic. 5. Represents the middle part of a leaf.
Fig. 6. Represents a small form.
"
a
?
¥
Matar,
=!
Ss
MEXCCAXZARIIN
tet ads 9 Beet tertcs:
SURE od eo RAYICKLEETaET
rxrr
xx x z
itecuas eteseraneeasy
Seetss
wewarur
XN
HS—P
7
aad)
SPHENOZAMIT
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA Pl, XLIV
MITES—CYCADITES
<> aes ; — ae
ink Z een =
MMU
LY
ay Ae
aN
acs
‘ ey)
.
iin a yl le
SSN "eS KZ
= 2
Sa
SS — >
LULZ SZ
ssss =
BAIBRA—LACCOPTERIS—ACROSTICHIDES
PLATE XIUIxX.
Fras. 1, La. Lonchopteris oblongus. Page 102. Emmons, ‘‘Am., Geol.,” plate 4, figs. 6 and 8.
Fig. 1. Summit of frond.
Fig. 1a. Pinnule of Fig. 1, enlarged.
Fic. 2, Asterocarpus platyrachis, Page 103. Emmons ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 71.
Vig. 3. Equisetum Rogersi. Page 109. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 3.
Fig. 4. Sphenozamites Rogersianus. Page 98. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Sagenopteris rhoifolia. Page 104. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4, fig. 10.
Fic. 6. Ctenophyllum Braunianum, Var.a. Page 114. Emmons, ‘Am, Geol.,” plate 4, fig. 11.
Fic. 7. Acrostichides rhombifolius. Page 105. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 5.
Fig. 8. Araucarites Carolinensis. Page 118. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 4.
Fie. 9. Cladophlebis obtusilobus. Page 105. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 1.
Tre. 10. Cheirolepis Miinsteri. Page 98. Emmons, ‘‘ Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 3.
h1Gs. 11, 12, 12a. Laceopteris Carolinensis, Page 102. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 68 and plate 4, figs. 1, 2.
Pie. 11. Sterile pinnules enlarged. -
Fic. 12. Portion of fertile pinnule.
Fic. 12a, Portion of Fig. 12, magnified.
OLDER MHSOZCIC FLORA PL. XLIX
U. § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
S
—
SS
LOWER MESOZOIC FLORA OF NORTH CAROLINA (BMMONS)
PLATE ii
Figs. 1, 2. Palissya Braunii. Page 106. Emmons, “Am. Geol.”
Fic. 1. Portion of a large branch. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4a.
Fig. 2. Summit of branch with cone? Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 72.
Fig. 3. Cheirolepis Miinsteri. Page 107. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 75.
Fig. 4. Pachyphyllum peregrinum. Page 108. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 76.
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. L
U. 8 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CAROLINA (EMMONS)
yor EL
OE
N
FLO
DYanFwnvnr
PLATE Ul.
Palissya Braunii. Page 106. Emmons, “‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 73.
Pterophyllum decussatum. Page 111. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 1.
Cycadites acutus. Page 109. Emmons, ‘‘Am., Geol.,” fig. 81.
Palissya diffusa. Page 106. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 2.
Palissya Carolinensis. Page 109. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 80.
Laccopteris elegans.
Cycadites longifolius.
Baiera Miinsteriana.
Page 104. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 2.
Page 110. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 82.
Page 120. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 102.
OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL Il
U. § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
\) R
AW) NS of
ZEN TAN
WO els Ss. ,
CPNINS SE We
SANS H , —,
WON AS 2 WW (a Le
NAN 4 = p: \ i ; ess ih JE
Kian a) S\\\) pe LA Mes
SSMS WAS ofS
\ LFS YESS
AY \ Z Me v7
—-
Sj)
——
>)
——
WE
Pe
——
=
VEN:
=
~S
LOWER MESOZOIC FLORA OF NORTH CAROLINA (EMMONS)
FIG
FIG
FIG
Fig
Fig
Fic.
Fic
. 1. Bambusium ? Carolinense.
. 2, Undetermined plant.
PRAT Titel,
Page 120. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 100.
Page 119. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 99.
. 3. Actinopteris quadrifoliata. Page 119. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 2.
. 4. Araucarites Carolinensis.
Page 118. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 98.
. 4a. Seales of the cone magnified. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. 6.
. 5. Zamiostrobus Emmonsi.
. 6. Otozamites Carolinensis.
Page 117, Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 92a,
Page 117. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 95.
U § GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OLDER MESOZOIC FLORA PL. LIT
\
iy i; YY, \\
Lif} : be
LOWER MESOZOIC, +LORA OF NORTH CAROLINA (EBMMNON
)
'
Aa
ly
<
ah"
.
PLATE LIII.
Fig. 1. Baiera multifida. Page 118. Emmons, ‘Am, Geol.,” fig. 96.
Fra. 2. Podozamites Emmonsi. Page 110. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” plate 3, fig. n
Fig. 3. Cheirolepis Miinsteri. Page 107. Emmons, eke Geol.,” fig 74,
Fic. 4. Pierophyllum pectinatum. Page —. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig.
Fia. 5. Dioonites longifolius. Page 110, Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 83. ve
Fia. 6. Pterophyllum spatulatum. Page 114. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 88.
Fic. 7, Equisetum Rogersi. — Page 108, Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 6, fig. 9.
i
LOWER MESOZOIC FLORA OF NORTH CAROLINA (BMMONS)
iy a) ore
'Sime
Lane
wav en lheeel: Cadre a7
us i) Waberii Lo j 4
ernard, Chl val Fee ce
at Ge? ny Te ted
haat: ei (rei Ena rea sue idl
ASP od padres
i] ae ial Vs
rel Pa rsa 4 ie ere we PAs Ty Py eee
eae. 4 se si PAOrerig "eee hi alee
Peas ia ae ye iy) wa” ern 3 | si rca aera ee :
f 2) eel & 7 ro pelt Ded is Meath ee ork. a
= 5 ak ed fT MOO eS See hil goeey wet
: = 7 : \
PLATE LIV.
Fic. 1. Ctenophyllum Emmonsi. Page 113. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 86a.
Fic. 2. Ctenophyllum lineare. Page 113. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 87.
Fic. 3. Pseudodaneopsis reticulata. Page 116. Emmons, ‘Am, Geol.,” fig. 90.
Figs. 4,5. Ctenophyllum Braunianum var. 8. Page 112. Emmons, “Am.” Geol.
Fig. 4. Portion of plant of normal size. Emmons, ‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 85.
Fic. 5. Portion of a plant of the smaller kind. Emmons, ‘‘Am, Geol.,” fig. 86.
Figs. 6,7. Ctenophyllum robustum, Page 116. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.”
Fic. 6. Summit of leaf. Emmons, “Am. Geol.,” fig. 92.
Fic. 7. Middle portion of a leaf. Emmons, “‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 91.
Fic. 8. Pseudodanwopsis nervosa. Page 115. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 89.
Fig. 9. Asplenites Résserti. Page 104. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” plate 4, fig. 3.
Fic. 10. Zamiostrobus spec.? Page 117. Emmons, ‘‘Am. Geol.,” fig. 93.
LOWER MESOZOIC FLORA OF NORTH CAROLINA (EMMONS)
Wes aKa
an
i
bat
hark
x
i
(es ee
f
air
a
beds
ey
n
w
a
<
a
a
z
fe]
e
=)
=
E
7)
=
z
s
z
°
77]
x
=
=
o
3 9088 01363 2120
TMA