294 ooi*EL..vxi>. 
20. Athyrium Blumei (Bergsm.) CopcU comb. nova. Asplemu in Blumei Tier g^m. 
1857, Mett. Asplenium No. 224. Diplazium polypodioidcs Bl.; Athyrium, Milde 
1870, non Scluir. 1858. />. marffinatttm Bl. 1828, non Diels 1899 which is Athy- 
rium warylndtuni Milde. Asphii'nuii (Jiplazioidcfi Bory lS.'i:3, non H. & A., 1832. 
Allantodia aspidioides De Vr. 1851, non Athyrium, Pre^sl 1830. 
Lnzon, Vnming 20^ 288 in part; Nueva Viscaya, Merrill 2SS; Tarlac, Halls, n.; 
Mount Arayat, Bolster 72; ^Tount ^lariveles, For. Bur. 132 Barnes. Copeland 235, 
For. Bur. 1238 Borden, Topping 363, 39S, Whitford 19J,, Elmer 6709; Bi/al Prov- 
ince, Bur. Sci. iJSJ, JitVfO Ramos; Cavite Province, Bur. ^ci. J29G, 1329 Manguhai; 
Mount !Mayon, Bur. .Vci. 2918 M earns: Negros, Oimagaan River, Whitford 1(137 ; 
"Mount Caulaon, VopeJand s. n.; Horn of Xegros, Fhnrr 9800, /02Jf-y: :Mindanao, 
]-iLnao district, Mrs. Clemens s. n.; Zaniboanga, Copeland 1G03 ; "Nfount Apo, 
Copeland 1J,92. 
India to Australia. 
This is a fern of such size that a fragment of the frond can not he determined 
with certainty, and descriptions which (U> not include the caudex nor even the 
stipe are quite insufficient. In li-sting synonyms 1 have merely followed Chris- 
tensen, and do not suppose that if the entire plants were known all of tliese names 
would I)e found to apply to one species. As to the name I have chosen, there is 
nothing in the diagnoses to show that it dillers from any specimen I liave listed, 
it is regarded by Cliristensen as a synonym of D. polypodioides, and is the oldest 
name available in Athyrium. Neither do I regard all the Philippine plants pro- 
visionally called by this name as being conspecific; but since descriptions are 
inadequate and the many specimens at my disposal from India and Malaya are 
likewise incomplete, the best that can be done is to make this for the present a 
"Sammelspccies" Diplazium <ispcrum Bl. (.1 iJtyrium, Milde) is still another 
8|>ecies, which, for the reasons just given, I can nut detormine positively. I have 
several specimens from Java, pieces of fruiting fronds, which I can in no way 
distinguish from young specimens of A. Blumei; but liaving no doubt as to the 
correctness of Blume's judgment, I have not combined the species. 
Athyrium aspcrum (Bl.) Milde, just iliscussed, is also reported from the Phil- 
ippines. We have here, in fact, two ferns which will fit Blume's diagnosis, one 
with a stout stipe and one with a slender stipe. Old and densely fruiting fronds 
of either are 2)ractically indistinguishable from the preceding species. Raciborski, 
Pteridpphyten der Flora von Buitenzorg, 227—8, reduces asperum to polypodludcs. 
The Mindoro plant, Merrill 5918, which I referred to />. asperum, Philip. Journ. 
Sci. 2 (in07) Bot. 120, does not exactly fit Blume's diagnosis, and can not nearly 
be included in Kaciborski's description. 
21. Athyrium fructuosum Copel, comb. nova. Diplazium fructuosum Copel. 
in Philip. Journ. Sci. 1 (1906) Suppl. 150. Diplazium affinr J. Sm. 1841, nomen 
nudum; Athyrium, Milde. 
San Ramon, Zaniboanga, Copeland 1699: Luzon, Cuming 1G7. 
This differs typically from A. asperum in that the pinnules are not at all 
cuneate, and the sori in fully fruiting specimens are confluent. Near this, but 
hardly identical is Elmer lOOOO, from Horn of Negros Mountain. 
I should of course have taken up !MiIdo's name if I had suspected the identit}' 
of A. af}i}ie; but it is only as this paper is being finishe<l, two years after the 
publication of D. fructuosum, that I receive one of the lower pinnules of Cuming 
167, wl'ich seems to be the same fern. We already had a fine spcidmen of the 
upper end of a frond of this fern, but in this group of species it is often im- 
possible to identify such parts. 
22. Athyrium dolichosorum Copel. comb, nova, Diplazium doUchosorum 
Copel. Philip. J(mrn. Sci. 1 (100(5) Suppl. lr>l. D. fimifhianum Christ ibid. 2 
(1907) Bot. Ifi3, but not, I believe, of Diels. 
