Lastrsea spinosa and L. multiflora of Newman. 325 



(1 777). Rett, FL Scand. ed. 2. 250. (1795). Wither. Bot. Arr. 



ed. 3. iii. 778. (1796). Wahl. FL Upsal. 345. (1820). 

 Polyp, multiflorum, /3. spinosum, i2o^A, Catalecta Bot . i. 135. (1797). 

 Polysticum spinosum, Roth, Tent. Fl. Germ. iii. 91. (1800). Catal. 



Bot. ii. 149. (1800). 

 Aspidium dilatatum, /3. spinulosum, Wahl. Fl. Lapp. 282. (1812). 

 Asp. spinulosum, a. Wahl. Fl. Suec. ii. 675. (1826). 

 Nephrodium spinulosum, Kunth, Fl. Berol. ii. 418. (1838). 

 Lastreea spinosa, Newm. in Nat. Aim. for 1844 ; Hist, of Brit. Ferns , 



209. (1844). 



Lastraa multiflora. — As to the supposed priority of Rothes 

 name {Polysticum multiflorum), it may be remarked that Roth 

 having continued to employ his own specific name, given in the 

 ' Catalecta/ is no proof that he " claims for it priority/^ as he 

 seems in other cases to prefer his own names to those previously 

 used by Hoffmann without assigning any reason. In the present 

 case he takes no further notice of Hofimann^s name [Polyp, dila- 

 tatum) than by quoting it as a synonym of his own Polyst. mul- 

 tiflorum. Rothes ' Catalecta Botanica/ part 1, appeared in the 

 year 1797, whilst vol. ii. of Hoffmann^s ^ Deutschlands Flora' 

 (which I have not seen) was published in ^^ 1795.^^ It appears 

 therefore that the claim of priority is in favour of dilatatum, which 

 Roth (Tent. Fl. Germ.) gives as an undoubted synonym of his 

 multiflorum, and also quotes Miiller^s figure in the ^ Fl. Fridrich./ 

 to which I have already referred. There does not seem to be 

 sufficient reason for any doubt being thrown upon the identity of 

 Hoffmann^s Polyp, dilatatum with Rothes Polyst. multiflorum ; 

 and if they are identical, RotVs admirable description is surely 

 not a sufficient reason for adopting a name which has not been 

 used by any botanist (as far as my observation extends) except 

 its author and Mr. Newman, and rejecting one of prior date, and 

 at least as good, which has been correctly employed by many 

 authors. 



In the first part of his ^ Catalecta ' Roth did not distinguish 

 this plant from the preceding, but included them both under the 

 name of Polypodium multiflorum. In the second part he sepa- 

 rated them, employing the name of multiflorum for the var. a., 

 and spinosum for the var. /3. of the former part. The ' Catalecta,' 

 part 2, was printed after vol. iii. of the ' Tentamen Fl. Germ.,' 

 which is quoted in it, and we must refer to the ' Tentamen ' for 

 the separation of the synonyms of the respective species, which 

 are mixed together in the ' Catalecta,' part 1, but carefully re- 

 ferred to the species to which they belong in the ' Tentamen.' 



It is unnecessary to go further into an examination of the 

 synonymy of this species, as the whole question turns upon the 

 above points. 



