48 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
3. Hemiterta Munira (Willd.) Hook.; Kuhn, Linnaea 36: 162. 1869. 
Cyathea munita Willd.; Kaulf. Enum. Fil. 260. 1824, nomen nudum. 
Hematelia munita Hook. Sp. Fil. 1: 32. 1844, nomen nudum. 
Hemistegia munita Presl, Abh. Bohm. Ges. Wiss. V. 5: 355. 1848. 
The present species, based upon Willdenow’s no. 20168, was not described until 
1869, by Kuhn, although mentioned by several earlier writers under different names 
as indicated above. Through the kindness of Dr. I. Urban the writer has examined 
a small portion of Willdenow’s specimen, which has as its type locality simply 
“America.”? It conforms well with Kuhn’s description and represents either a valid 
species or a nearly sterile state of H. obtusa Kaulf.; probably the latter, although it is 
not matched exactly by other specimens. The scales are brownish, as in that species, 
but very few and minute; also, the segments are more deeply serrate and the sinuses 
much narrower than usual. It is, at least, closely allied to IJ. obtusa, and the type 
should be compared closely with undoubted specimens of that species. 
4, HEMITELIA spECTABILIS Kunze, Linnaea 21: 233. 1848. 
Hemistegia spectabilis Fée, Gen. Fil. 351. 1850-52. 
Actinophlebia obtusa Presl, Abh. Bohm. Ges. Wiss. V. 5: 356. 1s48, not Hemitelia 
obtusa Kaulf. 1824. 
Type LocaLiry: Surinam, Kappler 1771. 
Disrripution: French and Dutch Guiana, Trinidad, and Venezuela, according to 
Kunze. 
Intusrration: Hook. Sp. Fil. 1: pl. 14.4 (as I. obtusa). 
So far as can be ascertained this species, which is here identified with some uncer- 
tainty, is wholly South American, the Trinidad flora being considered as belonging 
to that continent. Kunze included in his concept of the species plants from several 
widely separated regions: Material collected in French Guiana by Leprieur and at 
first’ referred doubtfully to H. obtusa; better specimens received later from Dutch 
Guiana and Trinidad; and, finally, material collected near Caracas by Linden and by 
Karsten. Mettenius ? subsequently redescribed the species in full, citing it only 
from Dutch Guiana. Principally on the basis of the latter diagnosis, which does not 
conflict with that of Kunze, the name is here applied with reservation to the following 
material in the National Herbarium: 
TRINIDAD: Without locality, Fendler 25 (4 sheets). Near Valencia, Nov., 1883, 
Eggers 1423. Without locality, ex herb. Bot. Gard. Trinidad, 195. 
Venecuena: El Valle, Island of Margarita, August 16, 1901, Miller & Johnston 
164, San Juan Mountain, Island of Margarita, altitude 500 meters, July 16, 
1903, Johnston 191 (in part). 
Whether or not these specimens actually pertain to I, spectabilis, they at least 
represent a species distinct from any of the North American flora, and one to which 
no other name appears to apply. They accord well with the descriptions by Kunze 
and Mettenius already mentioned. Hooker's figure cited above also agrees perfectly, 
It was probably drawn from Lockhart’s Trinidad material mentioned by him.’ (Seg 
under /T. obtusa.) 
According to Christensen’s Index Filicum []emistegia spectabilis Fée is an equivalent 
of Hemitelia subincisa. Fée published no description of it but cited the following 
synonymy: “ Hemithelia obtusa, Hook., fragm., *non Klfss.; Hemithelia [Cnemidaria | 
subincisa, Kze.”? Thus, although he apparently did not intend it to be a transfer of 
Hemitelia spectabilis Kunze to the genus Hemistegia and, in fact, makes no reference 
to Kunze’s species, it is nevertheless on the basis of Hooker’s illustration a probable 
synonym of Hemitelia spectabtlis. 
1 Bot. Zeit. 2: 297. 1844. 
? Fil. Hort. Lips. 111. 1854. 
* This is substantiated by a recent letter from the Director of the Royal Gardens, 
Kew. 
