162 ON THE FIBRO-VASCULAR BUNDLES IN FERNS AND 



. A few instances, taken almost at random, will suffice to show 

 what strange confusion reigns. 



There is a common fern known in the nurserymen's catalogues as 

 Poly podium trichodes, which rejoices in the aliases of Aspidium, 

 Lastrea, Phegopteris, and ITypolepis — a range of genera represented 

 in the Kew classification of Mr. J. Smith by the numbers 5, 70, 

 75, 84 and 85. 



Cystopteris fragilis, to take a familiar fern enough, is Polypodium 

 of Linnasus, Aspidium of Swartz, and even Cyathea of Smith's 

 English Botany — or 5, 70, 76, 131 of the Kew classification. 



So also Nephrolepis is in turn a Polypodium, an Aspidium, and 

 a Nephrodium. 



Struthiropteris is Onoclea ; Onychium is Lomaria, Trichomanes, 

 and even Pteris. 



These are not, be it remembered, the vagaries of catalogues com- 

 posed with insufficient knowledge, but the aliases of conflicting 

 authorities in Botanical Science. 



These illustrations, as every Fern student knows to his cost, might 

 be indefinitely extended. There is hardly a genus which is exempt. 

 There are few of these anomalies which would not have to yield to 

 the verdict of the supplementary test which is now proposed. 



It is the object of this brief paper to indicate the groups into 

 which ferns seem to fall by the evidence of the diagram of the 

 section of the stipes. 



To simplify the matter I shall speak of the arrangement of the 

 fibro-vascular bundles as seen in section as the " Hieroglyph." 



The examination of many Hieroglyphs establishes two conclu- 

 sions : 



1st. In certain genera — and by far the larger number — the evi- 

 dence of the Hieroglyph accords with the existing classification. 

 It is plus and, therefore, surplus. 



2nd. In certain genera the evidence of the Hieroglyph, so far 

 from sustaining the existing classification, invalidates it, and would 

 transfer many a fern from the genus to which it is now assigned to 

 another. The evidence in these cases is minus and material. 



What is the net value of these conclusions ? Shall we accept 

 the affirmative evidence as superfluous, and dismiss the negative as 

 impertinent, simply saying, " So much the worse for the Hiero- 

 glyph ! " or shall we collect and group all this evidence, plus or 

 minus, pro or con, and see what assistance it can afford us in at 



