235 
capsules on the disk near the margin. The first of these is Pachypleu- 
ria Guimardiana (Nephrodium Guimardianum of Gaudichaud); Hu- 
mata pectinata of J. Smith and Davallia pectinata of Sir J. E. Smith 
are the same plant. The second is Humata pinnatifida (Davallia 
pinnatifida of Swartz), and the third is Colposoria angustata of Presl 
(Davallia angustata of Hooker and Greville). 
Genus Davallia. * 
In which the rhizome is extremely stout and the fronds very much 
divided. Example, Davallia canariensis of Smith, under which 
name it appears to me that several Atlantic species have been hitherto 
united ; they are universally cultivated, and familiar to all botanists. 
Family HypoLePipeg. 
In which the rhizome extends with great rapidity, sometimes on the 
surface and sometimes under ground ; itis covered with a dense, erect 
down, differing much in appearance from the large, appressed scales 
of Davallia canariensis. The undeveloped frond emerges from the 
rhizome at distant intervals, and, except in its erect position, at right 
angles with the rhizome, it closely resembles that organ, its sub- 
stance and clothing being identical; it is not articulated at the base, 
and the basal portion of the stipes of many years are often found ad- 
herent to the rhizome. The fronds have long stipes and a deltoid 
outline; they are of very large size, and are remarkable for the ex- 
tremely rudimentary state when first evolved from the rhizome; the 
fructification is marginal, and partially covered by the reflexed margin 
of frond. I notice three genera, each containing many species. 
Genus Hypolepis. 
In which the marginal fructification is interrupted or punctiform, 
and the velvety rbizome exposed. The example is a most familiar 
* The genus Davallia of Sir J. E. Smith, Prest and Hooker appears to be com- 
posed of very heterogeneous species. Even in the fructification, the only character 
employed as distinctive, I find little or no similarity. Under these circumstances, 
there seems an obvious impropriety in assigning the names Davallies and Davallia 
to the restricted and altered groups; but, on the other hand, it would appear most 
arbitrary to call the familiar Davallia canariensis by another name, 
Tacidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim. 
The genus now indicated has nothing more to do with the genus Davallia of Smith, 
&c., than that it.contains one of the species. 
