170 ' 118 



reduced, central ones about 10 cm long, 2'/2 cm broad, shortly acuminate, a 

 distinct aërophore at the base beneath, incised to a wing 4-5 mm broad into 

 close oblong segments, which are as broad at the rounded apex as at the base. 

 Veins 10 — 12, keel distinct. — Fertile lamina much narrower, 20 cm long by 8 

 cm broad; pinnæ distant, obtuse, 3— 3'/-> cm long, 1 cm broad, incised nearly to 

 costa. Sori near costule, furnished with a persistent, long-ciliated indusium. 



1). valdepilosa is intermediate between I). Leprieurii and I), insignis, abundantly 

 different from both by its dimorphous fronds and woolly pubescence of stipe 

 and rachis. 



187. Dryopteris insignis (Mett.) O. Ktze. Rev. 2: 813. 1891; C. Chr. Ind. 272. 



Syn. Aspidium insigne Mett. Ann. sc. nat. V. 2: 247. 1864. 

 Nepbrodium insigne Bak. Syn. 262. 1867. 



Type from Colombia, Triana (B, where only a pair of basal pinnæ is to 

 be found). 



A true Steiropteris, by Hieronymus unrightly identified with D. brachyodus 

 (Hedwigia 4G: 323). It differs from the other species of the subgenus by its entirely 

 glabrous pinnæ, which are only incised '/2 — ^/s; keel very distinct; segments 7 — 8 

 mm broad; veins 12 — 16-jugate, prominent, sori medial, small. Texture firm, mem- 

 branous, colour grey. 



A hairy form of this species is no doubt Dryopteris lata Hieron. Hedwigia 

 46: 327. 1907, from Ecuador, in valle Pastaza, Stübel nr. 999 part (B!). It differs 

 by its strigose costæ and veins beneath and the caudate apex of the pinnæ. Hiero- 

 nymus identified it with Lastrea lata J. Sm. a name attributed to Cuming pi. phi- 

 lipp. nr. 266, which certainly came from the Philippine Islands. I have seen au- 

 thentic specimens of Cuming nr. 266 in herb. Presl and they differ from D. lata 

 Hieron. inter alia by the stalked pinnæ. I agree with Baker in considering L. lata 

 J. Sm. a form of D. crassifotia (Bl.) O. Ktze. 



The following two species are as to several characters very different from the 

 species of Steiropteris dealt with above, still I think their proper place must be in 

 this subgenus, although it is not improbable that they belong to a proper subgenus. 

 In general aspect they resemble much more species of Goniopteris f. inst. D. nicara- 

 guensis and D. megalodus, and at first I referred them to that subgenus. They 

 differ, however, from Goniopteris and agree with Steiropteris in the presence of 

 distinct aërophores and in pubescence, stellate hairs being entirely wanting, rachis 

 and costæ beneath are very finely pubescent by minute, simple hairs, which do 

 not differ from the short, unicellular hairs of most species of Steiropteris. Long 

 pluricellular hairs of the common kind do not occur, but the costæ and costulæ 

 beneath are more or less furnished with narrow, brown fibrils, which are scale- 

 like hairs consisting of a single row of cells; such fibrils are often found in large 



