Underwood: The genus Alcicornium 591 



In 1845 Fee (Mem, Foug. 2: 102-104) took up the genus 

 Nevroplatyceros from Plukenet and recognized four species, viz.: 



N. alcicornis, N. aethiopiciis Pluk. [Acrostichiim Sicmana 

 Beauv.), N. grandis and N. biformis. The first three were placed 

 In the § Platyceria and the last named in the § Scutigcra. A 

 fine plate (//. 64) was given of the second species. 



In 1864 Hooker (Sp. Fil, 5: 282-285) again recognized Platy- 

 ceritini with species as follows : 



1. P. alcicorne Desv, 4. P. Wallichii Hook. 



2. P, aethiopicnm Hook. 5. P. biforme Bl. 



3. P. gi'ande J. Sm. 



In this somewhat tedious recital we can see from our present 

 viewpoint that during the first half of the last century there \\g:xq. 

 two somewhat common species, the one from Australia with nar- 

 row leaves which are usually twice forked and bear the sporangial 

 surfaces on the distal lobes, the other with a broader leaf and usu- 

 ally shorter lobes, bearing the sporangial surface at the extremity 

 of the broadened surface between the lobes. The first, which \s 

 the Platyceritwi alcicorne of recent authors, was first described by 

 Cavanilles as Acrostichiim bifttrcatitm (type locality, Port Jackson, 

 Australia) and again by Desvaux as Platyceriiim angustattWL 

 Presl recognized this as a distinct species but was unfortunate in 

 the selection of his name, although he specifies that it was the P. 

 alcicorne of Gaudichaud and not of previous authors. The second 

 species is from Madagascar and other parts of Africa, where it is 

 the more common species, and was probably the original Acros- 

 tichiim alcicorne Willem. (type locality, Madagascar), and was cer- 

 tainly the Acrostichiim Stemaria of Beauvois. It is more than 

 likely that a young sterile and possibly abnormal leaf of this spe- 

 cies served for the figure of Plukenet which was copied bySchkuhr 



a hundred years later. 



It is, therefore, evident that the name alcicorne, which Swartz 

 and his contemporaries used to include both plants, and which 



be noted the fact that Presl's work was reviewed by Schlechtendahl as a novelty in the 

 Botanische Zeitung. in September 1852 (lo: 656, 657). Internal evidence that the 

 final touches were not given to Presl's manuscript until after ihe close of the year 

 printed on his title-page, is to be found in two direct citations, on page 261, of species 

 published by Kunze in 1850 (Bot. Zeit, 8: 57. S^. 25 Ja 1850). Finally, an 

 inspection of ihe ongmdl paper cover of the Epimeliae shows that it is dated (on last 

 page) ''Pragae, 185 1." J. H- B., Ed.] 



