6 HYPOLEPIS, ETC. [CH. 



to it a similar place. Christ {Farnkrduter, p. 278) associates it with Phego- 

 pteris, and especially with P. punctata (Thunbg.) Bedd. Diels {Nat. Pflan- 

 zenfain. i, 4, p. 277) places it in his Pterideae-Cheilanthinae, in near relation 

 to Cheilanthes and Llavea. In all these decisions it appears that the chief 

 weight of comparison has fallen upon the sorus, with its single apparently 

 marginal indusium, and its usually subglobose form: little attention seems 

 to have been paid to its probable origin in descent. But Sir William Hooker 



Fig. 582. HypoL'pis'Qexnh. A=II. iemiifoliaBQxnh.: lowest pinna. B = H. repens Presl: segment 

 with venation and sori. C, D — H. Schimperi (Kze.) Hook.: C= lowest pinna, Z> = part of a segment 

 with venation and sori. {B after Baker, in Fl. Bras.: the rest after Diels, from Engler and Prantl.) 



discusses also the habit of these plants {Spec. Fil. Vol. II, p. 59). He points 

 out how Presl in his Tentanien limits the genus to those species which 

 correspond to the Microlepia group of Dicksonia. He also quotes John 

 Smith as adopting this view, though at the same time comparing Hypolepis 

 with some large-fronded species o{ Polypodmm. He remarks that "their whole 

 habit naturally indicates them to be a distinct group from the species which I 

 retain as Cheila7tthes'' (Fig. 582, ^, C). Mettenius {Famgattungen, V, p. 3) 



