USNM 37478 Hedera macclurii Heer?  


Hollick (1930)

Pl. 30 Fig. 2b




From Hollick (1930) (p. 110-111)

"Chignik River, just below Long Bay, Alaska Peninsula (original No. 55); collected by
W. W. Atwood and H. M. Eakin in 1908 (lot 5297)."


Locality Map



From Hollick (1930) (p. 110-111)

"Plate 30, Figure 2b"

"Hedera macclurii Heer, Flora fossllis arctica, Vol . I , p. 119, pl. 17, figs. 1a, 2c, 3, 4, 5a, 1868; Contributlons to the fossil fiora of North Greenland: Idem, vol. 2, No. 4, p. 476, pl. 52, fig. 8c, 1869; Die miocene Flora und Fauna Spitzbergens: Idem, vol. 2, No. 3, p. 60, pl. 13, figs. 29-32a, 33, l870; Beitrage zur fossilen Flora Spitzbergens: Idem, vol. 4, No. 1, p. 78, pl. 18, figs. la, 2, 1876; Miocene Flora dcr Insel Sachalin: Idem, vol. 5, No. 3, p. 44, pl. 7, fig. 9b?, 1878; Beitrage zur miocenen Flora von Nord-Canada: Idem, vol. 6, No. 3, p. 16, pl. 3, figs. 4, 5, 1880; Die fossle Flora Gronlands, zweiter Theil: Idem, vol. 7, p. 117, pl. 66, fig. 2, 1883." (Heer 1869; 1870; 1876; 1878; 1880; 1883)



From Hollick (1930) (p. 110-111)

"This leaf is referred only tentatively to this species, as it is too imperfectly preserved for satisfactory comparison; but its general characters, as far as they can be seen, appear to be identical with those of Heer's species, especially when comparison is made with his Figure 5a, Plate 17, volume 1; Figure 30, Plate 13, volume 2; and Figure 2, Plate 18, volume 4.
Hedera macclurii was formerly supposed to be a strictly Tertiary species, but Kryshtofovich (1918) (p. 59, fig. 14) has published the results of recent observations which indicate, at least so far as the island of Sakhalin is concerned, that the beds in which the species occurs are of Cretaceous age. In his discussion of Hedera macclurii he says :

'This Arctic species, which was regarded before as Tertiary, can be identified with one of our species occurrlng in the Mgach. • • • Most of the described floras which contain the present species are of doubtful age, but the Mgach flora • • • is no doubt Cretaceous.'

This statement, of course, raises the question whether or not all the leaves referred by Heer to the species actually belong in it, and it is a significant fact that he himself questions the identity of his specimen from the island of Sakhalin.

It should also be remarked that our specimen is highly suggestive of Hedera primordialis Saporta (1879) (p. 200, fig. 29) to which Newberry (1895[1896]) (p. 113, pl. 19, figs. 1, 9; pl. 37, figs. 1 - 7) referred a number of leaves from the Raritan formation of New Jersey, some of which, especially his Figures 2, 4, and 7 on Plate 37, are as much like certain forms of Hedera macclurii as they are like Hedera primordialis. In fact if all the diverse leaf forms referred to these two species by various authorities were grouped together it would be a very difficult matter to separate them satisfactorily."