57 



303 



Arechavaletae C. Chr. Ind. 252. 1905. Poly pod i nm camporum Lindman, Ark. for Bot. 

 1: 228 tab. 10 fig. 13. 1903; Drijopteris camporum C. Chr. Ind. 256. 1905. 



Type from Uruguay: Montevideo, leg. Arechavaleta n. 419 (HB!). — Other 

 specimens seen: 



Uruguay: Santa Lucia, M. B. Berro n. 1258 (HC). 



Brazil: Friburgo, R. Mendonca n. 849 (HBl. — S. Catharina, S. Francisco, E. 

 Ule n. 74 (HB). — Rio Grande do Sui, Cima da Serra, Lindman n. A. 1547 (HS). 



Stem rather short, strong, rigid. Lamina smaller with many pair of auriculi- 

 form pinnæ, more compact and stifTer than the type. Both surfaces, yet especially 

 the under one with many distinct, yellow glands. P. camporum Lindm. is the 

 same form down to the smallest details. 



Fig. 29. D. rivularioides (Fée) C. Chr. from the type specimen (at the left hand) 

 and forma pseudothelypteris (Hos.) from the type specimen. 



42. Dryopteris scariosa Rosenstock, Hedwigia 46: 127. 1906. 



Type from Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul, Jürgens n. 192 (HR!). 



Differing from the other species with a creeping rhizome by its broader and 

 more linear pinnæ and broader segments and by its pubescence : besides the more 

 general short hairs the veins above are furnished with long, stiff setæ. The veins 

 are simple and in dried specimens black. 



A specimen leg.Glaziou n.2551 resembling this species very much is determined 

 by Christ as Aspidium eriosorum Fée, Cr. vase. Brés. 2: 73 tab. 101. 1873; Dryopteris 

 eriosora C. Chr. Ind. 263. 1905; Hieron. Hedwigia 46: 334. 1907, founded on Glaziou 

 n. 5264 and 5265, and it is possible that his determination is right; the number 

 2551 written on the label is, 1 think, erroneous. As both that specimen as well 

 as those seen by Fée lack a rhizome the identification with D. scariosa Ros. is not 



D. K. D. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., 7. R.-ekke, naturvidensk. o)! niathem. Afd. IV. 4. 4Ü 



