222 . PTERIS. 



Ilab. Martinique, Plmnier. French Guiana, Leprieur, Richard (Agardh). 

 Peru, Pceppig {in Herb. No.s/r.), Paiigoa, Peru, Mathews, n. 1109 and 1«02. 

 Porto Ivico, Riedelcy {Ayardh). Ecuador and Bay of Ellia, Seemann. Jamaica. 

 Purdie. — My linowledge of tliis fine species is derived mostly from specimens in 

 my herbarium : (1.) from Kuiize's " Pf. pudophi/lla" (certainly not of Swartz), and 

 to which Agardh has given the name of Kunzcana ; (2.) from Mathew's specimens, 

 also named by Agardh ; and (3.) from specimens gathered by Seemann in Ecuador 

 (figured at our Tab. CXXXIX.), all of which I consider to be specifically identical, 

 and to correspond with the figure above quoted of Plumier, Fil. t. 5. and 11, a 

 Fern which I suspect has been greatly misunderstood. Swartz and others have 

 referred to it a plant {Pt. aculeata, Sw. and Agardh) which has so little resem- 

 blance to it that Agardh himself refers doubtfully to Plumier's figure for that 

 species; and I think it is impossible to compare our specimens of Pt. Kunzeana, 

 named by Agardh, and particularly that state of it which we have received from 

 Ecuador (Seemann), without saying that they arc one and the same species. It 

 is quite true, judging from our specimens of portions only of the fronds, it is out 

 of our power to say whether this (and Pt. aculeata, to which the character is 

 equally assigned) is arborescent or not. Although Plumier calls this " Filix 

 arborescens ramosa et aculeata," his description is at variance with this, and to 

 me not very intelligible : " La racine de cette Fougere est composee de beaucoup 

 de fibres epaisses, d'oii il sort quelquefois une tige basse, epaisse comme le corps 

 d'un lionime, et toute herissee d'l'pines tres-noires. II n'en sort bieii souvent aussi 

 que de grandes costes {stipites), garnies d'epines en si grand nombre qu'elles 

 forment un buisson qui fait peur, ainsi que la tige, qui ressemble plutot a un lie- 

 risson qu'a la tige d'une plante." And again, " Les costes (stipites), qui naissent 

 ou du tronc ou immediatement de la racine, out dans leur commencement presque 

 trois ponces d'epaisseur; elles s'clevent jusqu'a la hauteur d'un homnie, d'ntn- 

 nuant toujours petit a petit, et se partageant a leur sonmiite en trois branches, 

 dont les collaterales se partageant un pen plus haut en deux autres branches," 

 etc. Now Swartz seems almost to have copied these words into his Flora Ind. 

 Occ, p. IGOl ("stipites plnres, orgyales, sive radicales, sive in caudicem breveni 

 uniti, apice 3-partiti, ramis lateralibus iterum bipartitis"), so as to render it 

 doubtful if he has not relied wholly on Plumier's description, and had that ami 

 Plumier's figure in view, rather than what goes now by the name of Pt. aculeata, 

 and which Agardh has determined to be the same as ours. The only aculeated 

 portion of this Fern figured by Pkuuier appears intended for the base of the stipes, 

 and that is not much unlike what we find in a portion of the stipes of Pt. gigan- 

 tea in our possession. 



Although however I unhesitatingly refer Pt. Kunzeana to Plumier's " Filix 

 arborescens ramosa et aculeata," I am far from being satisfied that it is perma- 

 nent in its characters, and that it does not pass into other supposed species. Mr. 

 J. Smith has a memorandum attached to what appears to be a slight variety of 

 this very s])ecies, from Jamaica : "Pteris (Litobrochia) aculeata, Sw., macroptera, 

 Lk., decurrens, liaddi, polita, Lk., Beecheyana, .Ag., Endlicheriana, kg., elata, Ag., 

 Berteroana, Xg., etc. etc. ; how do they differ .'" To these might with almost 

 equal propriety be added, gigantea, Willd., crassipes, Ag., comans, Forst., JVood- 

 wardioides 1, Bory, and propinqua, Ag. Yet very able botanists have held them 

 to be distinct. 



If indeed we could confine ourselves to some of the very well-marked forms to 

 be seen in herbaria of small e.\tent, the difficulty of assigning characters would 

 not be great ; but our extensive suites of specimens from different collectors and 

 diflferent localities, while they tend to throw doubt on the permanency of many 

 species, render it almost impossible to draw up such definitions as shall include 

 the numerous forms we may be disposed to consider as belonging to one and 

 the same species. 



