Monographs Details: Cebatha multiformis
Authority: Hollick, Charles A. 1927. The Flora of the Saint Eugene Silts, Kootenay Valley, British Columbia. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 7: 389-428.
Scientific Name:Cebatha multiformis
Description:Species Description - Leaves varying in shape and size, rounded subtriangular in shape, some slightly unsymmetrical, 6 to 9 centimeters in length by about the same in maximum width, broadest below the middle, rounded below, broadly truncate or curved and slightly oblique at the base, and occasionally abruptly cuneate in immediate proximity to the petiole; margins entire, lobed, or lobate-dentate; nervation 3-palmate from the base; lateral primaries branched from the outer sides, a basilar branch occasionally simulating a weak, exterior lateral primary, the branches all coalescing and becoming camptodrome in the marginal regions.



"Cebatha (Cocculus) n. sp." Hollick, Summary Rept. (loc. cit), p. 134.

The type of foliage represented by these specimens is more abundant than any other in the collections from the Saint Eugene silts. Almost every piece of matrix contains remains more or less complete or fragmentary. Individual leaves differ so widely between themselves, in many instances, that the question of mutual specific identity might well be raised and, if found dissociated, either stratigraphically or geographically, they would probably be regarded as specifically distinct. In the silts, however, they are found not only closely associated but also, associated with them, are other specimens of leaves that show every possible gradation of form between the extremes, so that if a considerable series is arranged it is impossible to draw any satisfactory line or lines of demarkation between them.

Among existing genera in which heterophylly is a conspicuous feature may be noted certain ones in the Menispermaceae, especially Cissampelos, Menispermum, and Cebatha (Cocculus); and it is, in many instances, difficult to differentiate between these genera by means of the leaves alone. Comparison of our specimens, however, with a large number of leaves of species in these genera, particularly with those of the existing Cebatha Carolina (Linnaeus) Britton, appeared to indicate a somewhat closer resemblance to the latter. This was my original generic identification (loc. cit.), based upon the specimens represented by FIGURES 1-3, PLATE 39, and it may be regarded as more or less significant that Berry28 described and figured specimens from the Pleistocene of Kentucky, that closely resemble ours, which he identified as Cebatha Carolina without question. Our specimens are larger in size; but otherwise it would be difficult to differentiate between them.