402 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
identified myosuroides with reference to Schkuhr’s illustration. Thus Jenman, in 
his series of descriptions of the ferns of Jamaica, though properly distinguishing the 
two species, made the mistake of redescribing as P. myosuroides the species figured 
by Schkuhr. The true myosuroides of Swartz he called Polypodiwm jamesoni Jenman, 
since according to his view it was identical with Xiphopteris jamesoni Hook., a species 
described meanwhile from South American material, and thus did not require a new 
species name. 
Having collected in Jamaica numerous specimens of the two species distinguished 
by Jenman, and having come to the conclusion that the name myosuroides had been 
applied erroneously by him, the writer published a short paper in 1905,' in which he 
restored myosuroides to its original application and, as previously noted, gave the 
name Polypodium delitescens to the species illustrated by Schkuhr. The main 
grounds for this were that the term myosuroides, meaning literally ‘‘mousetail-like,”’ 
is not in the least appropriate to the plant figured by Schkuhr, but does exactly 
describe the slender, caudate, lightly sinuate-crenate fertile tips of the fronds of the 
other species. 
While the writer’s paper was in press there appeared the article by Hieronymus, in 
which the name myosuroides was used in a very doubtful sense and in which, also, 
the status of Schkuhr’s plant was left in abeyance. The only Jamaican material of 
‘“myosuroides” cited by Hieronymus consists of several fragments received from 
Swartz which were held to be authentic. The writer thereupon sent to Dr. C, A. M. 
Lindman, at Stockholm, excellent specimens of what was believed to be true myo- 
suroides and others representing the species figured by Schkuhr (P. delitescens), with 
the request that a comparison of these be made with Swartz’s own material. Doctor 
Lindman replied promptly that immixed among the type tufts of P. myosuroides 
(so labeled in Swartz’s own hand) he had found a single detached frond of P. delitescens 
which matched perfectly the writer’s specimens of that species and the Schkuhr 
illustration. As substantiating this he inclosed ‘‘rubbings” of the single detached 
frond of P. delitescens and of some of the larger specimens of the type material of P. 
myosuroides. They exactly represent the two species as distinguished by the writer 
in 1905. 
For the sake of historical clearness some further reference to Schkuhr’s figure is 
necessary. Hieronymus points out that this was listed by Hooker under P. setosum 
(P. micropteris C. Chr.) and by Mettenius under P. myosuroides. His further comment, 
translated freely, is as follows: * 
‘‘Without an examination of the specimen which Schkuhr actually bad in hand 
it would not be possible to say which of the two [i. e. Hooker or Mettenius] is right. 
Inasmuch as the figure shows no bristles upon the lamina and represents a plant from 
Jamaica (where P. setosum is apparently not found), one might incline to Mettenius’s 
view and believe that it represents a young plant of P. myosuroides in which the 
fertile lamina (as exceptionally happens in this species) is not separated into two 
clearly differentiated parts. Still, it may be that a third (and as yet unknown) 
species is here represented.”’ 
Assuredly, P. delitescens, as shown in plate 12 and figure 10, has no near relationship 
with the South American P. micropteris. It is much nearer to P. myosuroides (pl. 11 
and fig. 9), and the fact that Schkuhr’s figure was cited under that species by Met- 
tenius and was not definitely placed by Hieronymus may be attributed to the cir- 
cumstance that the only Jamaican specimens of either P. myosuroides or P. delitescens 
in the Berlin herbarium are those received from Swartz. One of these (which was 
found mixed among specimens of P. trichomanoides) is fairly characteristic of P. 
delitescens. A second specimen, sent by Swartz in 1813, consists of parts of three 
detached fronds, two of which are P. myosuroides, the third being P. delitescens. The 
1 Bull. Torrey Club 82: 73-75. 1905. 2 Op. cit. 92. 
