1902J Davenport, — Notes on New England Ferns, — V 159 



Richard in Michaux with Marthe's Catalogue. The latter is given 

 in Pritzel's "Thesaurus" both editions, the earlier one (1851) con- 

 taining the full title exactly as here given. In Pfeiffer's Nomenclator 

 (i. pt. 1, p. 449) the work is cited for Botrypus (Botrychium) in the 

 same form as by Richard in Michaux and in the octavo edition of his 

 "Nature Printed Ferns" (1859), under Lastraea Filix-mas, Moore 

 also cited it in the same way for Nephrodium Filix-mas, Richard, 

 giving the page (120) and date (1801) correctly. 



This effectually disposes of a recent declaration that Filix-mas, 

 was first placed in Nephrodium by " Hooker in 1862-1874"! The 

 record here presented shows clearly enough that it was so placed by 

 Richard himself in 1801. Desvaux also cited Nephrodium Filix-mas, 

 Richard, in 1828 (Mem. Soc. Linn. vi. p. 60, see Eaton, Ferns of N. 

 Amer. i. p. 312). thirty-four years before Hooker's use of it! 



We have now a well authenticated record showing, first, the publi- 

 cation of Nephrodium two years before its publication in Michaux; 

 and second, the publication of a generic and specific combination, 

 which complies with that portion of the fifth rule in the Rochester 

 Code which declares that "the publication of the name of the genus 

 and the citation of one or more previously published species as exam 

 pies or types of the genus with or without a diagnosis" shall consti- 

 tute publication of a genus. 



The assumption that Nephrodium equals Polystichum because N 

 acrostichoides the first species mentioned in Michaux proved to be a 

 Polystichum, is thus shown to be untenable, even on the basis of 

 those who believe that the first species under a complex genus must 

 be taken as the type, as we have here the earlier publication of N. 

 Filix-mas, fortified by the addition of the three species from Michaux 

 and the additional historic fact that "the early writers did not 

 always name the most typical species first." The principal of the 

 first species fixing the type of a complex genus is altogether modern, 

 and one that I have no where "professed" to accept notwithstand- 

 ing a recent assertion to the contrary. There is, 1 conceive, a great 

 difference between "the first species under a genus" and the first 

 correctly named species, the latter being the form of expression which 

 I have used. In the other form the principle has been rejected 

 even by Dr. Britton (Science xiii. 588; 1901). It is extremely 

 doubtful if any of the old authors ever gave a thought to the arrange- 

 ment of species with any such a purpose in view, and when there is 



