Lasti*?ea splnosa niul L. inultillura of Newman. 323 



but I am not inclined to admit tliat he was the first wlio under- 

 stood them. 



All the older writers who have noticed this plant refer to ^^'eiss, 

 Crypt., who describes it most satisfactorily as Folypodium filix- 

 foemina, y. spinosa, but states expressly that this and three other 

 varieties are " unius solummodo speciei notabiliores varietates." 

 His term spinosa therefore, being only emjjloyed to designate a 

 variety, has no claim of priority over one used sj)ccifically, for it 

 certainly is not imperative, although an excellent practice, to 

 adopt that name for a plant as a species the term by which it 

 was known as a variety. Weiss refers to Miiller's ' Flora Fri- 

 drichsdalia' for a description and figure of his plant : that de- 

 scription is very short but satisfactory, and the figure (which only 

 rej)resents one pair of pinna*) cannot be doubted. 



If now we refer to the earliest writers who have used the term 

 sjnnidosuni as applicable to a species, we find Miiller employing 

 it* in the ' Flora Danica' in the year 1777, and ilctz in his * Flora 

 Scandinavian' in 1795. The figure in the ' Fl. Dan.' is far from 

 being satisfactoiy, as indeed is the case with many of the plates 

 in that work, but it, and ]Miiller's own figure in his ' Fl. Fridrich.,' 

 which is certainly our plant, are quoted as belonging to Asp. spi- 

 nulosum by all the best authorities. There cannot, I think, be 

 any doubt that ^Miiller, when applying the name of Polyp, spinu- 

 losumiothc plate in ' Fl. Dan.,' su])posed that the artist intended 

 to represent the unnamed plant noticed by him in his ' Fl. Fri- 

 di'ich.' as Poh/podium no. S^l. This settles the point as to the 

 priority of the names, for spinosum was not applied to a species 

 until used by Roth in the year 1800. 



Even if jNIiiller had been unacquainted with the plant named 

 Pohjsticum midtijlorum by Roth, we should have had quite suffi- 

 cient proof that his Polyp, spinulosum is identical with the Polyst. 

 spinosum of Roth, and also that he well understood the species ; 

 but if we turn to the ' Fl. Fridrich.' we find upon the same plate 

 the representation of another pair of pinnre belonging to his un- 

 named plant Polyp, no. 845, and this is a very good figure of 

 Roth's Polyst. multifloriim, being indeed referred by him to that 

 species. ]\Iiiller's short description also is satisfactory. It seems 

 then that although Roth may have been the first who " properly" 

 (that is I presume according to modern ideas) distinguished the 

 species, yet that thirty-three years preWously Miiller had sepa- 

 rated them specifically, and described and figm*ed them accord- 

 ing to the modes usually adopted at that date. Miiller having 



* The assertion that " spiinilosum " here is a misprint for Weiss's term 

 " spinosum " is surely unfounded. Miiller's name was doubtless su^rfrested 

 by that of Weiss, and substituted, we may well suppose, as agiecing belter 

 w iih the character of the plant. 



