IM 3.',. 11. tj.] CLASSIFICATIOX n|.- FnS.SH, I'LANTS. 378 



The charactors displayed l)y this material are so vague that 

 they may well occur in many different species. The r^^sem- 

 hlance between some of the more impei't'eet specimens of leat*- 

 sheatiis from (-rrahani Land and tlie t'<|uall\- imperfect Indian 

 ones, therefore, does not seem suttieient to warrant the use nf 

 the name given to the latter: the identitication would he 

 l»ased chietly on the lack of characters in (jne of the forms, 

 in this case — which is worse — in the type-specimens. There 

 is undoubtt'dJv a very ffreat risk in extendino: a name siv^'u 

 to such imperfect specimens to a much bettei* characterized 

 form, as thereby the name, on very insufficient grounds, is 

 made to mean so much more than it has done originally and, 

 therefore, perhaps something fpiite different. The danger is 

 tliat forms from other parts of the world would probably be 

 identitied hy other authors with the Indian E. rajmaludensis 

 because of their resemblance not to the type-specimens but to 

 the Antarctic ones. And the true Indian E. rajmahaJrusis 

 may ultimately be found to l)e something different: this is, at 

 any rate, just as ])ossible as that it is identical with the 

 Antarctic form. The confusion arising then may be easily 

 imagined, whereas, if the two forms are temporarily kept 

 separate, an ultimate identification would l)ring no such con- 

 sequence. 



Regarding the use of the generic name Schroptcris^ the reas- 

 ons have been set forth in my discussion of P(icl/yj>trrfs (1. c, 

 !». oD). To a reference of my S. f'nrcafa to the genus Dicho- 

 jifriis I must most strongly object. As types of Didiojiti ris 

 should be regarded the large Italian species for which Zigno 

 founded the genus. The difference, in regard to both shape 

 and venation of the pinnules, between Scbroptrfis f'nrcafa 

 and Dichopttris risianica Zkjno is so obvious as to need no 

 further explanation, and the coincidence in the forking of the 

 rachis cannot be regarded as being of any importance. If 

 Dirhoptrris is extended so as to embrace forms like Schro- 

 })trris f'urcata it would much sooner come to include the genus 



