NOTES ON THE FERN-FLORA OF CHINA. 235 
as a variety distinct from the northern omne, relying, as I learn from 
him by letter, on the circumstance that in the former the transverse 
diameter of the pinnule is greater than the longitudinal, whilst in the 
latter the reverse is the case. But the considerable number of speci- 
mens from both parts of the empire whieh I have been enabled to com- 
pare conclusively prove the instability of this character, and that it is 
not possible to distinguish two well-defined forms. 
Adiantum diaphanum, Bl., which, though very close to, is yet, I think, 
scarcely identical with 4. sefulosum, J. Sm., is abundant at Amoy, 
1 growing in wells, and on the shaded perpendicular sides of ditches. 
Though I have seen no Indian specimens, I think it most probable 
that my yr Guilelmi must be merged in A. Edgeworthii, Hook., 
to which, judging from the charaeter only, I had approximated it: : 
specimen from Pére David has the rachis conspicuously Hi sr 
whilst specimens of 4. Capillus- Junonis differ equally in the absence or 
presence of this naked rooting prolongation. What further disposes 
me to this conclusion is, that I have received from the same excellent 
naturalist, gathered on shaded rocks of the mountains of northern 
hina, two other plants hitherto supposed to be peculiar to India,— 
and there, I believe, local,—viz. Didymocarpus lanuginosa, Wall., and 
Gymnogramme vestita, Hook. This Fern is surely most distinct from 
A, caudatum, L., with which both it and A. rhizophorum, Swz. (also, 
as I ik, a true species), are combined by Mr. Baker in the ‘ Sy- 
nopsis. 
Adiantum Capillus- Veneris, L., is common in various places in the 
Canton province, but always, so far as I have observed, under the or- 
dinary form, not the one with deeply incised pinnules met with in 
Ceylon and elsewhere. 
Cheilanthes ? Chusana, Hook., was sent me from Foochow by Mr. 
Medhurst in 1859, and Messrs. Parry, Sampson, and I have met with 
it in various localities in Kwangtung. I cannot help thinking that my 
determination of this plant is correct, and the late Professor Mettenius 
was of the same opinion. It often accords quite well with the figure 
(Spec. Fil. 2. t. 106 B), but the pinne are frequently less approximate 
and the pinnules broader. Sir William Hooker, to whom on two 
several occasions I sent specimens, first said it was a broad form of C. 
tenuifolia, Swz., afterwards that he considered it to be his C. sudvillosa. 
"That, however, it cannot be, since it has neither the continuous invo- 
| s 2 
