ON TWO NEW CHINESE FERNS. 111 
others have one or two reticulations. On the other hand, W. Japonica, 
Sw., is equally variable in venation. I have a specimen precisely 
similar to Thunberg’s plate,* in which there is frequently an areole 
external to the sori, and I find the same to be the case in Dr. Harland’s 
Sung-tong specimens, quoted by Hooker under this species,} whilst 
the finest Chinese and Nagasaki specimens I have seen have perfectly 
free venation. As to the section Lorinseria, there is nothing but the 
so-called dimorphism of the fronds to distinguish it. But this term is 
not here strictly applicable. There is no dimorphism, properly speak - 
ing, in W. Harlandii, Hook.; avd Sir W. Hooker has himself t 
figured one of the simple fronds of this species as soriferous: it may 
be described as heterophyllous, but not as heteromorphous, in the sense 
in which that term is applied by Fée and others to Ferns. And, if the 
plate-of Schkuhr,§ usually so remarkable for his accuracy, be taken as 
à correct representation of JF. angustifolia, Sm., I do not see that that 
species is any more entitled to be so described. It is true that the sori- 
ferous fronds are usually narrower than those which remain sterile, just 
as happens with Pteris Cretica, L., P. crenata, L., P. pellucida, Presl, 
and their allies; but this commonly occurs in Ferns, and is apparently 
due to the action of that compensating law by which, in phanerogams, 
luxuriant-foliaged specimens are bad flowerers, both fruits and seeds 
being maintained, as Lindley observes,| at the expense of the leaves. 
True dimorphism— such as is met with in Polypodium quercifolium, L., 
P. Fortunei, Kze., etc.—is very different ; though the small value even 
of this is conclusively shown by P. coronans, Wall., so close an ally of 
the former. 
Nor do I see how Doodya (already united to Woodwardia by 
Mettenius,** Fée,tt and Moore,t{ but distinguished by Hooker$$ as 
having "a natural habit and tangible characters”) can be separated 
generieally. "There is absolutely no discriminative character except 
the superficial sori; those who admit the value of this should logically 
exclude Polypodium papillosum, Bl., and P. verrucosum, Wall.,—not 
very near allies, —from Polypodia proper. As to habit, I see nothing 
distinctive in the genus; and, considering how the allied genera vary 
* FL Japon. t. 35. T Spec. Filic. iii. 69. 
t Fil Exot. t. 7. reet $321; 
|| * Theory of Horticulture,’ ed. 1, par. 105. : 
** Fil. Hort. Lips. 65. : tt Gen. Fil. 206. 
tł Index Fil. 342. $8 Op. cit. iii. 71. 
VOL. VI. [JUNE 1, 1808.] vi 
