386 GENERA OF FERNS. 
tion is free; but in probably three species the venation 
is anastomosely reticulate. I therefore propose to retain 
as true Anemie the ones with free veins; and, in order to 
mark the reticulated venation, to constitute of them the fol- 
lowing genus Anemidictyon. The second section of Swartz 
contains four presumed species, differing from the first by 
their fertile fronds not being tripartite, but rising uniformly 
and direct from the rhizoma; on examining the authorities 
for the species so characterised, I find. that three of them, 
viz: Anemia bipinnata, Sm. A. verticillata, Sm. and A. fili- 
culifolia, Sm. must be entirely excluded from any relationship 
with the genus; at least judging from the only evidence at 
present afforded by the figures of Plumier quoted by Swartz 
as being species of Anemia. It appears to me that Swartz had 
nof seen specimens, and that he depended for his description 
entirely on these figures, and on Linneeus having quoted them 
as species of Osmunda, which tab. 155 evidently is. Therefore, 
the only original described species of Anemia, possessing 
distinct fertile fronds, is the A. aurita of Swartz, of which 
but few specimens exist in herbaria. To this section must 
also be referred a species, noticed by Swartz but not de- 
scribed, his sole authority being a figure in Ammann. Com. 
Petrop. 10, p. 295, t. 19. Specimens, apparently, belonging 
to this species, exist in the Linnaan herbarium; and, in 
the British Museum, Linneus has marked his specimer with 
a query Osmunda bipinnata, and from Sir J. E. Smith's writing 
on the same specimen, it would seem that he viewed it as 
Osmunda filiculifolia, Linn. ; but it is evidently a very different 
plant from either of these species, as adopted by Linneus 
from Plumier. Presuming the circumstance of the fertile fronds 
being distinct (and not three-parted), to prove a sufficient 
character for keeping these species separate from true Ane- 
mia, then their affinities will be with Mohria; also with two 
species from Brazil lately described in this Journal by 
Professor Gardner, under a new genus, which ‘he names 
Coptophyllum ; but a careful examination of fine speci- 
mens, presented me by that most industrious collector 
and acute botanist, compels me to differ from him, for I 
