THE NARROW PRICKLY-TOOTHED BUCKLER FE 
abundant. glands which cover it, though this latter is a character of comparatively little value, f 
common forms of Z. dilatata, in no other respect distinguishable, are found both covered with and free 
from glands, L. spinulosa is less easily distinguished by the precise and important characters afforded 
by the caudex, th 
scales, and the indusia, from Z. eristata ; though perhaps more readily separated 
by the eye from that, than from imperfect specimens of Z. dilatata, with which, in some of its forms, 
it agrees in the variable, and therefore less important character of the subdivision of its parts. From 
L. cristata itself, L. spinulosa may be known, by the short triangular, and less divided pinne of the 
former, and by their blunter, less deeply toothed pinnules ; but from the variety whiginosa it is in some 
nas bei 
of its states much loss easily known, the greater inequality of the pinnules on its lower pi s 
almost the only difference, if we except the cristata-like fronds of uliginosa—and the latter are not always 
p 
we are forced to the conclusion that they are all three in reality mero va 
mt. Indeed so closely do these merge into cach other by means of transition forms of frond, that 
ions from one specifie type. 
"There are two versions of the specifie name of this plant in use a British botanists- 
spinosa 
and spinulosa. We advisedly use the latter. Тһе former has been revived by recent authors, on the 
grounds that Roth who employed itin Flora Germanica (1800), was the first to correctly define the plant 
from its ally Z. dilatata, and that Müller in the Flora Danica has “misprinted” spinulosa for Weiss’ 
name of spinosa, and under it figured the plant we now call Z. eristata, Weiss’ name Polypodium 
Filizfamina var, spinosa, as that of a variety merely, and altogether so incorrect, has no claim to notice 
Müller describes, but witho 
name, and very well figures, two рїшше of Z. spinnlosa in the Flora 
Pridvichsdalina (1767), and his later figure in Flora Danica (1777), where he names it Polypodium 
spinulosum, is an exact representation of our Z. spinulosa, and not of 2. cristata, We therefore 
llow the 
neither subscribe to the assumption that Müllers name is a misprint, nor can wo 
лос over Roth. 
a of 
sum as defined by Swartz in his Synopsis Filicum (p. 420) is the plant of 
jade on behalf of Weiss’ name; while Müller has by many years the preced 
Equally, as we believe, 
го those writers in error, who deny that this plant is the Zastrea spinul 
Presl. Aspidium spinu 
Müller's 
ures; and Swartz moreover quotes Schk 
hr's t, 48, which admirably depicts Z. spinulosa, 
excepting in the detached 
wes of indusia, d and e, these latter being evidently erroneous, for 
glandular indusia have, we believe, never been found on the true spinulosa, which the figure otherwise so 
perfectly represents, that it must be Z. spinulo I 
s and cannot be L. dilatata, Swartzs plant, there 
wo maintain, is Z. sp 
inulosa (our Piare XXL), not 2, dilatata, and Presl's is simply Swartzs with 
а new genere name, We thus arrive at the conclusion, that our English plant, the most divided of 
the three forms we refer to Za cristata, is the L. spinulosa of Presl, the Aspidium spinulosum of 
Swartz, and the Polypodium spinulosum of Müller, and we reject the far less appropriate name of 
spinosa, for which there is no admissible authority antecedent to that of Roth—nor even subsequent, 
for it has been all but universally rejected since his day 
‘The cultivation of this Fern accords precisely with that of Z. eri 
ta, and uliginosa ; and though, 
like them, no 
ranking among the most graceful of our large-growing Ferns, it has like them a certain 
degree of character, and is not inclegant 
Mr. Wollaston notices two variations of this plant: 1. multifida, in which the fronds are occasion: 
simply forked at the apex; it is not permanent under cultivation. 2. Zaeiniata ; in which the fronds 
are curiously jagged. 
