75 



truth must be spoken, tliat it is of the latter character. But at all 

 events, botanists will do well to be on the look out for the plant in 

 the Lake district. W. T. Bree. 



Allesley Rectoiy, January 23id, 1845. 



Note on Lastrcea recurva. By The Rev. W. T. Bree, M.A., F.L.S. 



While the pen is in my hand, I cannot resist the inclination I feel 

 to offer a iew remarks suggested by the perusal of the notice of New- 

 man's 'British Ferns,' in the last number (Phytol. ii. 21), and by that of 

 the review of the same work in the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural 

 History' for December, (p. 427). The writer of the last-named arti- 

 cle admits that the much disputed fern, Lastrsea recurva, is, he now 

 thinks, " a good species." This is so far satisfactory to my mind, as 

 I have ever from the first believed it to be distinct, even in spite of 

 high authorities to the contrary. But he objects vehemently to the 

 specific name, " recurva," as being quite incorrect, and " conveying a 

 totally wrong idea of the character of the frond, the whole and every 

 part of which is more or less incurved (the edges turning upwards), 

 never recurved or turned downwards." Allow me to ask — I would 

 not do so arrogantly, but for the sake of information, — whether " re- 

 curvus " necessarily signifies bent downwards and not upwards ? If 

 so, is it not a rather arbitrary restriction of the meaning of the word ? 

 The dictionaries give as its signification simply "crooked" or "bent 

 back," &c., not confining its sense to an inclination in either direc- 

 tion. A certain bird, well known to naturalists, without any imputa- 

 tion (so far as I know) of passing under a misnomer, bears the very 

 appropriate appellation of " Recurvirostra," from the singular circum- 

 stance of its bill turning upwards in a very unusual manner, and pre- 

 cisely in the same direction as do the edges of the pinnules of the 

 fern in question. At all events, I trust that the specific name"dume- 

 torum " will not be retained for our Lastraea, as the writer of the article 

 in the Annals suggests it should be ; since that would lead to confu- 

 sion, the specimens preserved in Smith's herbarium under that deno- 

 mination, avowedly, it seems, " not agreeing with it." It may be 

 added, too, that the name "dumetorum" is not sufficiently distinctive, 

 and might with equal, and even far more propriety, be applied to 

 other species. Should " recurva " be deemed so incorrect as to be 

 inadmissible, would the writer of the article in the Annals approve of 

 " iucurva " being substituted in its place ? I confess I should wish 



