POLYPODIACE^. 207 



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

 what near Loxoscaplie gibberosum MOORE (BAKER Syn. Filic. p. 100) from which 

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

 in my former paper, most closely allied to Davallia Clarkei BAKER (=Humata 

 HooJceri DIELS= AcropJiorus Hookeri MOORE) in its pinnatification of fronds and 

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

 Davallia and Acrophorus, as stated by Prof. L. DIELS in ENGL. u. PRANTL Natiir. 

 Pfl.-fam., the present fern is different from Davallia in its having inarticulated 

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

 nearer to Humata in its subcordate indusia and creeping rhizomes, but it is 

 separable from that genus by the inarticulated 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 in its creeping rhizomes. If these latter characters should necessitate the 

 separation of our fern from Acrophorus, and the inarticulated stipes from 

 Humata, it should constitute a special genus, Leucostegia PRESL. to which 

 Leucostegia immersa and others are referred. Through the courtesy of 

 Mr. E. D. MERRILL, I was so very fortunate as to know the opinion of Dr. 

 COPELAND who was so kind as to send me the following note on this 

 plant. According to Dr. COPELAND " this fern is congeneric with Davallia 

 cdhamantica CHRIST, Acrophorus Hookeri MOORE (Leucostegia, BEDD., Davallia 

 Clarkei BAKER), Acrophorus pseudo-cystopteris MOORE (Leucostegia, BEDD., 

 Davallia, KZE.) and Leucostegia pulchra J. SM. (Davallia, DON, Acrophorus, 

 MOORE). I would call it Leucostegia n. sp. None of the above species has 

 a functional articulation of the stipe. And the base of some stipes of 

 HAYATA'S fern shows a vestigial articulation. The fern is related to 

 Davallia, but not nearly to Acrophorus. The chaff at the base of the pinnae 

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

 resemblance. There are no such thickenings of the rhachis as in Acrophorus 

 and its relatives Diacalpe, Monachosorum etc., and frond form and rhizome 

 are very different." 



Microlepia PRESL. 

 Microlepia grandissima HAYATA sp. nov. (Fig. 140). Rhizoma? 



