1867.] review. 237 



Eaton has here cleared up the confusion which existed among our 

 species of the genus Cheilanthes. He has confirmed the Abbe 

 Brunet's observations that Neph. lanosum of Michaux is the 

 11 Ch. vestita Willdenow" of former editions and of American 

 botanists generally, — the " Ch. vestita Swartz" of the present 

 edition of this work. It is matter for regret that Michaux's 

 name has not been respected, but, having been continued through 

 so many editions and now confirmed in this one, and being probably 

 applied to the plant which the founder of the genus had in view, 

 the name vestita must now stand ; it is, however, noteworthy that 

 Swartz misunderstood Michaux's plant — he believed it to be an 

 Aspiclium, and that Sir William Hooker and other European 

 botanists have applied vestita to the plant here named Ch. lan- 

 uginosa. Ch. vestita has been found by Mr. Denslow, as far north 

 as the island of New York, and his specimens appear to be as 

 vigorous as those of more sourtheru latitudes. Ch. tomentosa of Link 

 (Lindheimer No. 743 ; Ch. Bradburii, Hook. Sp. Fil.) is not stated 

 to be rare, and yet specimens of it appear to be very scarce in the 

 herbaria of American botanists. The third species of Cheilanthes 

 which occurs within the geographical limits is here named Ch. 

 lanuginosa, a MS. name given by Nuttall; this must give place to 

 Biehl's earlier name Ch. gracilis which has been adopted by Fee 

 and by Mettenius : this plant is the Ch. vestita of Hooker's 

 Species Filicum. In Asplenium one new species has been admitted, 



A. ehenoides R. R. Scott, which is only an abnormal form of A. 

 ebeneum. In Woodsia, Mr. Eaton has receded from the position 

 assumed in his paper on the genus contributed to this journal, 

 having readmitted W. glabella to the rank not merely of a good 

 species but of a purely American species. The truth would appear 

 to lie between his two extremes ; those glaberous Lapland plants, 

 named W. liyperborea by Scandinavian botanists, are certainly 

 identical with our W. glabella, and are possibly what Liljeblad had 

 before him when describing his Acros. hyperboreum, and also what 

 Wahlenberg named Polypocliiim hyperboreum in " Flora Lap- 

 ponica." Our plants are, however, certainly distinct from the 

 Acros. alpinum of Bolton (W. hypcrborea, R. Br., Hook, etc.) 

 which is very near to W. llvensis if, indeed, it be separable from 

 it. In Botrychum, B. simplex is admitted as a species, as is also 



B. lanceolatum, neither of which have much claim to that rank. 

 With his views of generic limits, Mr. Eaton might very fairly have 

 seperatecl Dryopteris from Polystichum ; he has, however, following 



