ANGIOPTERIS LONGTFOLIA. 325 
herbaria and gardens, under the erroneous name of 4. evecta, Hoffm. 
It has been sufficient for an Angiopteris to come from Mb to obtain 
the name of 4. evecta. 
I am very much obliged by the liberality of my esteemed friends, 
Sir William Jackson Hoe Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew, 
of the President of the Linnean Society, Robert Brown, Esq., of Pro- 
fessor Fenzl, of Vienna, Professor Presl, of Prague, the directors of the 
Botanieal Gardens and Museum at Paris, Professor De Jussieu, Ad. 
Brongniart and Decaisne, to that very noble patron of science, Francois 
Baron Delessert, and Professor Miquel of Amsterdam, for having 
afforded me the opportunity of examining, without any restriction, all 
specimens of Marattiacee in their collections. I am sure that there 
is not a single species among the very great number described and 
undescribed (nearly forty), to be compared with that of Mr. Mathews, 
the type-specimen for Greville's and Hooker's species. 
For this reason, and on account of the great confusion which exists 
among the synonyms of authors, I have thought it not superfluous to 
give the above more extensive descriptions of 4. longifolia, Grev. et 
Hook. Guillemin’s 4. longifolia, Grev. et Hook. (Zephyr. Tait. p. 15, 
Paris, 1837), is not Mathews's specimen, but Moerenhout's, sent by 
this gentleman from Tahiti to M. D’Orbigny. It is in Baron Deles- 
sert's herbarium, but without a name. It belongs to Presl's 4. com- 
mutata (Tent. Pterid. Supplem. p. 15). 
I can hardly think that the very acute Professor Presl has had an 
opportunity of seeing the 4. longifolia of the English botanists. If 
so, it would have been impossible that he should have referred so very 
distinct a species to 4. evecta, Hoffm., as a synonym (Suppl. Tent. Pterid. 
p. 19). On another occasion I shall enter more fully into the investi- 
gation of the subject. : 
ln Kunze’s ‘Index Filicum in Hortis Europe Cultarum’ (Linn. 
vol. xxiii. 1850), a specimen from the Leyden garden, presented in 
1847 to that of Leipsic, is considered to be A. longifolia, Grev. et Hook. 
At that time I was still less acquainted with the different forms of - 
that very polymorphous genus. But I can say, without any doubt, 
that the plant in question was not 4. longifolia, Grev. et Hook. Con- - 
sequently the other specimens, from the Amsterdam, Berlin, Leipsic, 
and Schénbrunn gardens, mentioned by the author in the same part of 
his work, must be, like ours, of another species. 
