- I r — ^F^- r^ ■ "t' 



MAXON STUDIES OF TROPICAL AMERICAN FERNS. 483 



f 



Indian plant. The last is, however, an invalid name; and in sub- 

 stituting another, occasion may be taken to indicate the grounds for 

 fixing upon the Virginian plant as the type of Asplenium rhizopJti/]- 

 hun in preference to the other two elements originally included by 

 Linmeus. 



At page 1078 of the first edition of the Species Plantarum appears 

 the following: 



rhKophyUa. ASI*LEXrUM frondibns cordato-onsiformibus inclivisis: apico 



Jilifonne radicanto, Amocn. acad* 2. p. 337. 

 IMiyllitls fllicifoUa parvfi saxatilis virginiana per sunimitates fuli- 



orum radicosa. PJiik. aihu 154, t, 105. /. 3. 

 I'liyUitis non shiuatu minor, apico foHi radices ageute, HI(kuk 

 jam, 14. hist. 1. p. 71, t. 20. /. 1, 



riiyUitis saxatilis vir<i;iniana por snmmitates folionim prolifera. 



Moris, hht. 3. p, 557. -s*. 14. f, 1, /, 14. 

 Habitat in Jamaica, Virginia, Canada, Sibiria. 



L- 



■ Turning to the second volume of the Amoenitates we find the 

 twenty-ninth, by Halen, dated December 22, 1750, comprising images 

 ,'i32 to 364, to be entitled " Plantae Camschatcenses Karioreri " and t 

 contain among otlier things a brief chapter descriptive (at least by 

 citation) of some eleven plants of a recent Kamchatkan collection 

 which are supposed to be identical with species known previously 

 from North America. One of these is mentioned at page 337 as 

 follows : 



ASPLENIUM frondibns lanccolatis indivisis: apice filiformibus radicantibus. 

 I'byllitis noil siuuata minor, apice folii radices agente. SJocu}. Flor, 14. 

 Filicifolia Pbyllitis parva saxatilis virginiana per sunimitates foiiorniii 

 radloosa. Pluk. aim. 154. t. 105. /. 3. Pbyllitis saxatilis virginiana, per 

 sunimitates foliorum prolifera. Moris, hist. 3. p. 557. s. 14. t. 1. /. 14. 



Although the plant in hand was from Kamchatka the citation^ 

 show clearly that the Jamaican plant described and figured by 

 Sloane and the Virginian described and figured by both Plukenet 

 and Morrison were confused with this. The question is merely upon 

 the restricted application of the trivial name rhisop/i?/Ihim given 

 later by Linnanis. 



The Amoenitates description, "ASPLENIUM frondibus lanceolatis 



o 



indivisis: apice filiformibus," though Avithout much doubt drawn to 

 cover the Kamchatkan plant particuhirly, must in any event apply 

 either to this or to tlie Virginian, for the descriptive term " filiform " 

 is totally inapplicable to the apices of the Jamaican species. Later, 

 In the Species Tlantarum (1753), the specific character (though 

 credited to the Amoenitates) is so altered as to read " frondibus 

 cordato-ensiformibus * * * j api^g fili forme * * *." Thus, 

 to tliose who know the several species under discussion, it should* be 

 apparent at once that the Virginian plant is here especially meant, 



26379—08 '2 



