BENEDICT: REVISION OF THE GENUS VITTARIA 395 
V. scolopendrina (Bory) Thwaites. Superficially this is very 
different from species like V. lineata and V. sikkimensis Kuhn, but 
in its essential characters it does not appear to have even subge- 
neric diff from Euvittaria. Taeniopteris Hooker isa straight 
synonym of Haplopteris, as its original species seems to be iden- 
tical with V. scolopendrina. 
The only other possible nomenclatorial difficulty in connection 
with Vittaria concerns the name Oetosis Necker,* published in 
1790. Of course if this name were to be found valid, its seniority 
of three years would give it precedence of Vittaria. It is, however, 
like most of Necker’s names, quite without definite typification, 
and if recognized as originally described, would comprise in its 
six Linnaean species five widely separated genera. I make this 
statement with entire assurance notwithstanding the fact that 
Dr. E. L. Greene has concluded from the same evidence that 
Necker intended Oetosis to include only one Linnaean species, 
Pieris lineata, the type of Vittaria. Since Christensen also is 
not certain that Oetosis might not properly replace Vittaria, it 
may be worth while to give in some detail the evidence which 
needs to be considered, particularly as it bears on questions 
relating to other Neckerian names. 
To begin with, it may be stated that Dr. Greene’s error springs 
from two incorrect premises. These are: first, that Necker in- 
tended his description of Oetosis to be applied only to one Linnaean 
species of Pteris, instead of to several; and second, that when 
Necker referred to Linnaean plants, he had reference to the first 
edition of Species Plantarum and to no other work of Linnaeus. 
I am indebted to Dr. J. H. Barnhart for the discovery of both 
these inadvertencies. 
In correcting the second of these mistakes, it is almost sufficient 
to suggest that it is scarcely probable that Necker would have 
used such an out-of-date work as the first edition of the Species 
Plantarum when there were two later editions of the same book, 
as well as several later editions of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae, 
the latest of these having appeared in 1784, six years before 
Necker’s Elementa Botanica appeared. The case is about the 
same as at present with the various editions of the floras of the 
* Elementa Botanica 3: 318. 1790. 
