286 THE FLORIST. 



With regard to C. alpina, I am much disposed to set it down as 

 a beautiful alpine form of C. fragilis, and approaching closelj'- to C. 

 angustata in some of its stages of growth. It is true, however, that 

 C. alpina appears to be more divided in the fronds, and generally a 

 less plant than the other forms with which I am acquainted. Having 

 disposed of some of the forms of Cystopteris in an article in the 

 Gardeners' and Farmers' Journal of May 13th, 1848, p. 308, I shall 

 here add it to the above remarks. 



" C. DicKiEANA. Whether we consider this to be a species, or 

 only a casual variety, in either case it will doubtless prove, at the 

 present time, a valuable addition to our ferneries, if not to the British 

 Flora. For its discovery, as well as that of other rare British plants, 

 we are indebted to the unwearied exertions of Dr. Dickie of Aber- 

 deen, who detected it, as I am given to understand, amongst rocks 

 by the sea- side in the vicinity of that town, and who very kindly 

 forwarded to me both living plants and dried specimens from its 

 habitat. Its characters appear to run nearly as follows : C. Dickieana, 

 fronds bipinnate, pinnae nearly lanceolate, pinnules almost entire, 

 very obtuse and broad, stipes short. 



Notwithstanding this apparent difference between it and the 

 several other forms of Cystopteris, we may easily trace a gradation 

 from C. fragilis to C. Dickieana, depending entirely, I suspect, on 

 circumstances. In the young state of it, the fronds are usually pin- 

 nate, and have really much the appearance of Woodsia Ilvensis in that 

 state also, only the latter is invariably clothed with hairs, or scales, 

 which in the present plant are mostly wanting, I believe that I am 

 now cultivating from five to six different forms of Cystopteris, and 

 amongst the rest is a large one, indeed the largest Cystopteris I 

 ever saw, brought from Scotland by my friend Mr. J. B. Mackay, 

 yet, like some of its co-partners, it may readily be referred to C. 

 fragilis. Again, must we not in justice refer C. dentata, C. angus- 

 tata, and C. alpina, &c., all to one species ? I think my plants and 

 specimens from various parts of Britain justify, in a great degree, 

 the above opinion ; for really it is difficult to find words sufficient to 

 express what one means, as applied to several of these forms, at 

 least I find it so, and I think, ere long, that others w^ill arrive at the 

 same conclusion. It is true that many of our monstrosities are 

 readily detected, even at first sight ; but when we find it necessary 

 to apply to them for distinguishing characters, they are but too often 

 found wanting, and this may truly be said to apply to Cystopteris. 

 Therefore, if any of the recorded species, apart from C. fragilis, have 

 a claim to rank as such, so also must C. Dickieana. 



I am quite aware that the above will be considered a sweeping 

 conclusion to arrive at ; but it must be remembered that I take 

 nothing in this way for granted. Nevertheless, I shall not be par- 

 ticularly surprised to find Cystopteris Dickieana ultimately converted 

 into something else. 



On the presence or absence of teeth in the pinnules depend our 

 chief divisions in this genus." Robert Sim. 



Erratum. — At page 235, line 17 from bottom, /or Athyriura foeminum read 

 A. filix foemina. 



