MAXON—STUDIES OF TROPICAL AMERICAN FERNS, 31 
with the type specimens of Cyathea speciosa H. & B. in the Willdenow herbarium, as 
shown by an excellent photograph of these, forwarded by Doctor Urban. This fact, 
which seems never to have been pointed out, should be kept clearly in mind, as fixing 
beyond doubt the characters of cutting and venation in true 7. speciosa. 
The present species (under the name II. lindeni Hook.) was compared by Hooker 
with H. integrifolia Klotzsch (the ‘J. speciosa” of the species Filicum, plate 13 B), 
from which, writes Hooker, it “will be at once recognized as distinct * * * by the 
deeply lobed, almost pinnatifid, margins of the pinn, and by the different appearance 
of the fructifications,” which, he adds, “constitute a broad band, occupying almost 
one-half of the portion between the margin and the costa in distinction to the sub- 
marginal line of sori and the crenate-sinuate margins of H. integrifolia. It may be 
noted that these are the very points of distinction enumerated by Klotzsch in criticising 
Hooker’s earlier (1844) erroneous interpretation of C. speciosa H. & B. which led him 
to found the new species H. integrifolia. 
2. Hemitelia integrifolia Klotzsch, Linnaea 18: 539. 1844. 
Hemitelia speciosa Hook. Sp. Fil. 1: 28 (in part, excl. syn.) pl. 13 B. 1844, not 
H. speciosa (1. & B.) Kaulf, 1824. 
Typr LocaLity: Near Caracas, Venezuela, Otto 671; Moritz 107. 
Disrrisution: Northern portions of Colombia and Venezuela. 
InLustrations: Hook. loc. cit. pl. 13B; Hook. Exot. Ferns pl. 66 (both as H. spe- 
ciosa). 
Klotzsch in his original diagnosis of this species cites, as representing it, “Hemitelia 
speciosa Hook. Spec. Fil. t. XII. B. excl. diagn. et syn.’”’ and adds: ‘‘Ab Hemitelia 
speciosa Hook. nec Kaulf. (Cyathea speciosa Humb, Bonpl. Willd. Kth. et Presl) 
differt: caudice bipedali, nee quadriorgyali, pinnis subintegris, rigidis, nec profunde 
sinuatis tenuique membranaceis, venulis trifurcatis aut parce ramosis, soris crebris, 
marginalibus, nec distantibus.’’ A few years later! he called further attention to 
Hooker’s error in applying the species name speciosa of Humboldt and Bonpland and 
pointed out again very carefully the characteristic points of difference, adding in 
conclusion that, if Hooker did indeed have before him pinne of one of Humboldt’s 
specimens from Caripe, he had nevertheless apparen tly drawn his figure from another 
plant. 
At some time during the same year (1844) that Klotzsch published his first descrip- 
tion of H. integrifolia, Kunze also published ? upon Hooker’s treatment of Hemitelia, 
which had recently appeared in volume 1 of the Species Filicum. His conclusions, 
in so far as they recognize “‘ Hemitelia speciosa”? of Hooker as the equivalent of Cyathea 
speciosa I. & B., are erroneous; but it should be noted also that Kunze subsequently # 
receded from this position, at least partially, and came later to regard H. integrifolia 
as truly distinct from H. speciosa (H. & B.). Mettenius * also recognized H. integ- 
rifolia as distinct and, following his description of it, cited Hooker’s plate 13B. 
Nevertheless, Hooker in the Synopsis Filicum (1867) held to his previous erroneous 
treatment. 
3. Hemitelia bella Reichenb. f.; Mett. Fil. Hort. Lips. 110. 1856. 
Type LOCALITY: Caracas, Venezuela. 
DistrisuTION: Venezuela. 
Doctor Underwood’s note on this species is as follows: ‘‘The only specimers seen 
are from material cultivated in the Botanical Garden at Leipzig, of which specimens 
may be found in the herbaria at New York, Kew, and Berlin, and probably elsewhere.”’ 
Excellent material from the same source has been received recently by the U.S. 
National Museum. Apparently the species is not known from North America. 
1 Gartenzeit. 20: 50, 51. 1852. 3 Linnaea 28: 310. 1850. 
2 Bot. Zeit. 2: 294-298. 1844. 4 Fil. Hort. Lips. 110, 1856. 
