556 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NATIONAL HERBARIUM. 
DOUBTFUL OR EXCLUDED SPECIES, 
1. POLYPODIUM ANTIOQUIANUM Baker, Journ. Bot. Brit. & For. 19: 205. 1881. 
This species, founded upon specimens collected from among mosses on 
forest trees, Antioquia, Colombia, altitude 1,500 meters (Kalbreyer 1703) and 
apparently represented in herbaria only by Kalbreyer’s specimens, was wholly 
unknown to Hieronymus, who was inclined from description to regard it as 
a near relative of P. trichomanoides. An examination of a portion of the 
type (lent from Kew) shows, however, that it is not of the trichomanoides 
group but is related to P. cultratwm and allied species. The segments are 
monosorous, as in P. trichomanoides and allies, but the sorus is apical, being 
situated at or near the end of the distal rather than the proximal branch of 
the usually once-forked vein. 
2. POLYPODIUM BLEPHAROLEPIS ©, Chr. Ind. Fil. Suppl. 58. 1913. 
Described, originally as P. gracillimum Hieron.,’ upon specimens collected 
between Quito and Mindo, Province of Pichincha, Ecuador (Stiibel 747) and 
apparently known only from the type collection. According to description 
and figure it is most nearly related to P. daguense. It departs from other 
members of this group, as here treated, in sometimes having a second gsorus 
upon some of the pinne, 
3. Potypoptum ciBnosuM Fée, Mém. Foug. 6:8. pl. 2. f. 2. 1854. 
The original specimens of this species are said by Fée to have come from 
Oaxaca, Mexico, altitude 2,400 to 2,600 meters, and to have been received by 
him from the collector, Galeotti, under the name of Polypodium delicatulum, 
this, however, as described and figured by Martens and Galeotti, being a very 
different species of another rather large group, characterized by having 
numerous biserial sori. Fée, notwithstanding the obvious error of Galeotti’s 
identification (to which he called attention) and the consequent uncertainty 
as to the correctness of the locality data of the specimen, nevertheless de- 
scribed it as a new species. His illustration shows a plant which, if of a less 
critical group, would be recognized without much difliculty; but as yet no 
similar Mexican specimen has come to light among the large collections made 
in that country of late years. The Galeotti specimen is very likely West Indian 
in origin and the Mexican locality data wholly wrong. 
Hieronymus has associated? under the name P. gibbosum several specimens 
from Jamaica, Trinidad, Venezuela, and Martinique, all of which excepting the 
last mentioned (Martinique, Duss 1654) have been sent to the writer for 
comparison, They appear to represent more than one species, the one most 
resembling TWée’s figure being Day’s 233, from the vicinity of Newcastle, 
Jamaica. This plant is matched by two Jamaican specimens in the U. 8. 
National Herbarium (Safford 10; Mazon 962). Although all three may repre- 
sent P. gibbosum, this fact can not be substantiated without comparing them 
with Fée’s actual type. Further consideration of them is, therefore, deferred 
for the present. Their relationship is with P. taenifolium Jenman (P. 
sintenisii), which they resemble in their rhizome scales; but they are clearly 
not of that species. The Duss specimen (no, 1654) from Martinique, men- 
tioned above as not having been seen, is probably the unusually fertile Lesser 
Antilles form referred to under P. taenifolium and the Trinidad material is 
probably also of that species. | 
*Hedwigia 48: 250, pl. 12. f. 18. 1909. Invalidated by P. gracillimum Copel. 
in Perkins, Fragm. Fl. Phil. 189. 1905. 
* Hedwigia 44: 100. 1905. 
