NECKER'S GENERA OF FERNs—I. 
Among many interesting and some quite surprising prop- 
ositions made by Professor Underwood in his recent Review 
of the Genera of Ferns, the most surprising of all to me is 
the statement that none of Necker’s fern-genera “are based 
on types, and no earlier references are cited." Having long 
regarded Necker as amoug the most original and discerning 
of eighteenth-century botanists, I have studied him, at in- 
tervals during several years, with a steadily growing appre- 
ciation of his genius; and, having acquired some sort of 
mastery of his rather peculiar terminology—such as no one 
can gain but with some time and patience—I have not 
usually found it at all difficult to identify his genera. In. 
a word, my experience with his pbanerogamie genera has 
shown me that his generie types are indicated quite as 
plainly as there is any need of indicating them. I should 
uever have supposed that any botanist could say that 
Necker's genera are not based on types; and E can only 
account for Professor Underwood's pon two 
hypotheses. One is, that he has not seen Necker's work at 
all. The other is that, having aecess to the work, he could 
not take the necessary time and pains to learn to read it. 
In running over the fern-genera of this author, the first 
name we come upon that is indieated asa name for a pro. 
posed new genus is Achomanes. Conversant with his methods 
in name-making, I feel perfectly confident, without stopping 
either to read the generic diagnosis, or to note his positive 
statement of where in Linnsus the type-species are to be 
found, that the genus is taken out of Trichomanes. I recall, 
for example, that out of Linneus’ Senecio Necker took a 
genus Anecio; out of Verbena a genus Abena; out of Ver- 
Prrronta, Vol. IV. Pages 103-110. 2 Jan., 1900. 
