c 236 NOTES ON THE FERN-FLORA OF CHINA. 
lucre nor the villose pinuze which are attributed to that Fern both in 
the description and figure. 
Father Armand David discovered Cheilanthus tenuifolia, Sw., in 
shady places of the higher mountains in the neighbourhood of Peking. 
This Fern has not previously been recorded from Northern China, or 
from any part of Asiatic Russia; and I believe the Peking habitat is 
the most northerly known, answering to that of Tasmania in the 
southern hemisphere ; which, though in a slightly higher latitude, and 
on about the corresponding isotherm, enjoys, from its insular character 
and the great preponderance of ocean, a far more equable climate and 
milder winter. 
r. Sampson is, I believe, the discoverer of Pellea geraniifolia, Fée, 
in Southern China; having, in September 1868, gathered unusually 
fine specimens on precipitous rocks, above the monastery, near the 
summit of the Pakwan hills, outside Canton. 
The late Dr. Harland and I gathered, in October 1856, on the steep 
flanks of Victoria Peak, Hongkong, fine specimens of Péeris pellucida, 
Br., some of which were transmitted to Kew ; but, though the species 
was determined by Sir William Hooker, the locality is omitted in the 
* Synopsis.’ 
I find no plant in my herbarium answering to Péeris insignis, Mett., 
and there must be some mistake about the number, as my n. 79 is 
Asplenium Klotzschii, Mett. As its relationship to P. teniosa, J. Sm., 
is mentioned, it is probable the Fern sent was regarded by me as not 
distinct from P. cretica, L. 
Though I have seen no Javanese specimen, I have little doubt that 
Dr. Kuhn is right in reducing my Woodwardia angustiloba to W. au- 
riculata, Bl. 
Asplenium normale, Don, occurs in the dry clefts of rocks, on the 
summit of the White Cloud Mountains, above Canton, and I also 
gathered it on rocks in the Tsing-yune pass. Unless I err, this Fern 
has not previously been detected in China. 
y Asplenium comptum (Ann. Sc. Nat. 5 scr. v. 255) is a Fern re- 
specting which there is some difference of opinion amongst the most 
accomplished pteridologists. Sir W. Hooker (litt. 30 Jun. 1865) was 
uncertain whether it is distinct from 4. dimidiatum, L., or a small form 
of 4. macrophyllum, Sw. Professor Mettenius (litt. 31 Oct. 1865), 
after studying the Hookerian herbarium, regarded it as a remarkable 
