POLYPODUCE^. 207 



and the absence of articulation on the rhizomes. The present fem is some- 

 what near LoxoscapJie gibberosum MooKE (Baker Syn. Filic. p. 100) from which 

 it is distingiiishable in having much narrower pinnules. It is, as I stated 

 in my former paper, most closely allied tn Davallia ClarTcei Bakee ( = Humata 

 Hoolxri DiEL&^ Acrophorus Hookeri Mooke) in its pinnatification of frouds and 

 its subcordate indusia. So far as is concerned the delimitation of Humaia, 

 Davallia and Acropliorus, as stated by Pi-of. L. Diels in Engl. u. Prantl Natiii-. 

 Pfl.-fam., the present fern is different from DavaUia in its having inai-ticulated 

 stipes (which are not joined on the rliizome) and subcordate indusium. It comes 

 nearer to Humata iu its subcordate iudusia and creepiug rhizomes, but it is 

 separable from that genus by the inai-ticulated stipes. It resembles Acrophorus 

 in the inarticulated stipes, subcordate indusia, and in the presence of stipules, 

 but widely different from that genus in the ramification of fronds, venation 

 and ia its creeping rhizomes. If these latter characters should necessitate the 

 sepai-ation of our fern from Acrophorus, and the inarticidated stipes from 

 Hmnata, it should constitute a special genus, Leucost&jia Presl. to which 

 Leucostegia imm£rsa and others are referred. Through the courtesy of 

 Mi-. E. D. Merrill, I was so very fortunate as to kuow the opinion of Dr. 

 COPELAND who was so kind as to send me tlie foUowing note on this 

 plant. According to Dr. Copeland " this fem is congeneric with Davallia 

 athamantica Chkist, Acrophorus Hoolceri MoORE (Lciicostegia, Bedd., Davallia 

 ChrJcei Baker), Acropliorus pseudo-cijstopteris MooKE (Levcostegia, Bedd., 

 DavaUia, IvZE.) and Leucostegia pulchra J. Sm. {DavaUia, DoN, Acrophorus, 

 Mooke). I would call it Leucostcgia n. sp. Nono of the above species has 

 a fuuctional az-ticulation of the stipe. And the base of some stipes of 

 Hayata's fern shows a vestigial articulation. The fern is related to 

 DavaUia, but not uearly to Acrophorus. The chaff at tlie base of tlie piunas 

 does indeed suggest Acrophorus strongly, but this is only an accidental 

 resemblance. There are no such thickenings of the rhacliis as in Acropliorus 

 and its relatives Diaccdpe, Monachosorum etc, aud frond form and rhizome 

 are veiy different." 



JHcrolepia Presl. 

 Microlepia grandissima Hayata sp. nov. (Fig. 140). Khizoma? 



