Lastrsea spinosa and L. multiflora 4)f Newman. 323 



but I am not inclined to admit that he was the first who under- 

 stood them. 



All the older writers who have noticed this plant refer to Weiss, 

 Crypt., who describes it most satisfactorily as Polypodium filix- 

 fcemina, 7. spinosa, but states expressly that this and three other 

 varieties are " unius solummodo speciei notabiliores varietates/' 

 His term spinosa therefore, being only employed to designate a 

 variety, has no claim of priority over one used specifically, for it 

 certainly is not imperative, although an excellent practice, to 

 adopt that name for a plant as a species the term by which it 

 was known as a variety. Weiss refers to Miiller^s ' Flora Fri- 

 drichsdalia' for a description and figure of his plant : that de- 

 scription is very short but satisfactory, and the figure (which only 

 represents one pair of pinnae) cannot be doubted. 



If now we refer to the earliest writers who have used the term 

 spinulosum as applicable to a species, we find Midler employing 

 it* in the ' Flora Danica^ in the year 1777, and Retz in his ^ Flora 

 Scandinavise^ in 1795. The figure in the ' Fl. Dan.^ is far from 

 being satisfactory, as indeed is the case with many of the plates 

 in that work, but it, and Miiller's own figure in his ^ Fl. Fridrich.,' 

 which is certainly our plant, are quoted as belonging to Asp. spi- 

 nulosum by all the best authorities. There cannot, I think, be 

 any doubt that Miiller, when applying the name of Polyp, spinu- 

 losum to the plate in ' Fl. Dan.,^ supposed that the artist intended 

 to represent the unnamed plant noticed by him in his ' Fl. Fri- 

 drich.^ as Polypodium no. 841. This settles the point as to the 

 priority of the names, for spinosum was not applied to a species 

 until used by Roth in the year 1800. 



Even if Miiller had been unacquainted with the plant named 

 Polysticum multiflorum by Roth, we should have had quite suffi- 

 cient proof that his Polyp, spinulosum is identical with the Polyst. 

 spinosum of Roth, and also that he well understood the species ; 

 but if we turn to the ^ Fl. Fridrich.^ we find upon the same plate 

 the representation of another pair of pinnae belonging to his un- 

 named plant Polyp, no. 845, and this is a very good figure of 

 RotVs Polyst. multiflorum, being indeed referred by him to that 

 species. Miiller^s short description also is satisfactory. It seems 

 then that although Roth may have been the first who " properly" 

 (that is I presume according to modern ideas) distinguished the 

 species, yet that thirty-three years previously Miiller had sepa- 

 rated them specifically, and described and figured them accord- 

 ing to the modes usually adopted at that date. Miiller having 



* The assertion that " spinulosum " here is a misprint for Weiss's term 

 " spinosum " is surely unfounded. M tiller's name was doubtless suggested 

 by that of Weiss, and substituted, we may well suppose, as agreeing better 

 with the character of the plant. 



