^{page 542 note 1} Trautschold, in a recent memoir (Nouv. Mem. Soc. Nat. de Moscow, vol. xiii., 1871, p. 225), has separated, hut without sufficient reason, the fossil from Kline, near Moscow, which Eichwald described as Geinitzia cretacea, Endl. (Lethæ Rossica, vol. ii., p. 48), and has placed it in the genus Araucarites, under the name A. hamatus, His uniting Araucarites crassifolius, Corda, in Eichwald, l.c. p. 50, pl. iv., fig. 10, is, as far as Eichwald's figure and description are concerned, obviously an error. Trautschold's figure (pl. xxi., fig. 3) shows in one of the branches a cone, which belongs to Sequoia, judging from the form and direction of the scales; a similar fruit is represented in pl. xxi., fig. 7. This is described as a new species under the name Pinus elliptica (p. 227), with the following diagnostic characters: “ Strobilis ellipticis, squamis apice valde incrassatis, dorso rhomboidali carina transversali dimidiate, in medio carinse tuberculo prominente.” The size of the cone, the form of the scales, and the absence of imbrication in the scales, are characters which would place the cone in Sequoia, while the transverse carina and the prominent tubercle fall in with this interpretation of its position. A similar cone is given in the upper part of fig. 6, pl. xxi. If the restoration of the scale as given by Eichwald (l.e. pl. v., fig. 8, f, g, h) is accurate, it would throw doubt as to whether this fossil can be placed in the recent genus Sequoia, but it would certainly be nearly related to it, and far removed from Pinus, or Araucaria, with which Trautschold has associated it. In his text Trautschold considers this cone as nearly allied to Pinus primœva, Lindl. and Hutt: but I have shown that this is a true Cycadean fruit (Geol. Mag., 1867, Vol. IV., p. 105). The facies of the flora from Kline suggest to me that they are of Cretaceous age.