569 



pressed his opinion that it " is really a distinct species." He there 

 mentioned two characters by which to distinguish it from dilatatum, 

 namely, the recurved divisions of the leaflets, and the triangular form 

 of the frond, arising from the larger size of the lower pinnae. 



In the Cambridge 'Philosophical Transactions,' a year or two after- 

 wards, the Rev. Mr. Lowe published a paper which had been read 

 before the Cambridge Society in 1830, In that paper Mr. Lowe de- 

 scribed a fern which he had found to be common in Madeira, and to 

 which he gave the new specijic name of " fcenesecii." As he found 

 the frond of his fern assuming two different forms of outline, triangu- 

 lar or oblong, under different conditions of shade, he gave a subordi- 

 nate name to each form, viz., that of "alatum" to the triangular form, 

 and that of " productum " to the oblong form. Explicitly and unmis- 

 takeably he showed that the triangular form was to be considered the 

 true and typical form of his species " fcenesecii ; the other form being, 

 in his opinion, rather a state or monstrosity produced by deficiency 

 of light. He did not confuse his fern with the dilatatum or spinulo- 

 sum of authors, but expressly stated it to be distinct from both. 



Very recently it has been suggested that Bree's fern and Lowe's 

 fern are identical species ; and assuming this identity admitted, the 

 question arises, ' what is the proper specific name of the united spe- 

 cies ?' Mr. Bree gave no specific name to his fern, but treated it as 

 a variety of dilatatum, shortly and imperfectly distinguished from the 

 latter. On the contrary, Mr. Lowe published his fern unhesitatingly 

 as an undescribed species, invented a specific name, and drew out a 

 scientific character and elaborate description. Mr. Lowe's name and 

 description enjoyed the priority of a semi-publication through being 

 read to the Cambridge Society ; but Mr. Bree's name had priority in 

 printed publication. 



Under these circumstances, were the question one of simple priority 

 of name, it might be more advisable to adopt the name first fully pub- 

 lished in print. Unfortunately, that name was not imposed as a spe- 

 cific name, nor was it accompanied by any properly constructed spe- 

 cific diagnosis. It thus seems to myself that Mr. Lowe's name of 

 "fcenesecii" ought to be retained. He first publicly announced the 

 species, and he first printed a specific name and ample description of 

 the species so announced. Nothing but an earlier specijic name and 

 description should be allowed to set aside those of Mr. Lowe, and 

 Mr. Bree's name of "recurvum" was not such. 



Here is my clash of opinion with Mr. Newman. This gentleman 

 would discard the name given to the fern by Mr. Lowe. He does not 



