THE PTBRIDOPHYTA OF ["HE fUAN FERNANDEZ ISLANDS 31 



Hypolepis Bernh. 



35. II. rugosula (Labill.) J. Sm. Bot. Mag. 72, Comp. 8, [846 (»rugu- 

 losa»). — Syn. Polypodium rugosulum Labill. Nov. Holl. PI. Spec. 2: 92 tab. 

 241 (1806); Dryopteris punctata subsp. rugosula C. Chr. Ind. 287. 



var. Poeppigii (K/.e). - Syn. Polypodium Poeppigii Kunze, Linnaea 9: 50 

 (1834); Phegopteris Poeppigii Fee, Gay 6: 506; Mett. Pheg. no. 13; Polypodium 

 rugulosum Klf. Enum. 122 et auctt.; P. punctalunt Hemsl. 76 (excl. syn. Phego- 

 pteris spectabilis)\ Johow 1893: 36 pro parte [non fig. 21), 1896: 166 pro parte; 

 Nephrodiunt villosum Johow 1893: 35 pro parte, fig. 19, 1896: 165 (t. spec, in 

 Herb JOHOW! non auctt.); Hypolepis Poeppigiana Mett. Fil. Lechl. 1: 18(1856); 

 Dryopteris punctata C. Chr. Ind. 555. 



Seems to thrive under very different conditions, in dense or open forests, 

 on barren slopes at the roadsides etc. Probably fertile at all seasons. 



Masatierra: Q. Piedra agujeriada, c. 650 m (no. 596); V. Colonial, barren 

 slopes (no. 1 20) and in the caves no. IV and V (common, no. 587); Q. Vil- 

 lagra, just below the Portezuelo pass (no. 276). 



Masafuera: Near the abandoned Chozas village, roadside, 400 m (no. 

 439)i Q- del Blindado, forest, c. 440 m; C. del Barril, 985 m; Q. de las Vacas; 

 Q. Angosta, at the waterfall. 



The many specimens collected clearly belong to the Chilean Pol. Poep- 

 pigii, and this cannot be separated from H. rugosula as a distinct species. 

 KUNZE found that the essential differences between his Poeppigii and rugosu- 

 lum of LABILLARDIERE (the specific name erroneously written »rugulosum» 

 by all authors) were the lax texture and the obtuse, approximate secondary 

 pinnules of the former. It is true that most specimens show these characters, 

 which, however, vary with difference in shade and humidity. The shade form 

 (e. g. no. 587) belongs to typical Poeppigii, but specimens from open soil are 

 scarcely distinguishable from typical P. rugosulum from Australia, where the 

 texture in the less humid climate becomes more thick, and the pinnules are 

 more distant and more acuminate. In all other characters specimens from the 

 two regions closely agree, and it is, therefore, impossible to deal with Poep- 

 pigii as a species, perhaps even as a distinct variety. The specimens from 

 Juan Fernandez are also very similar to Polypodium viscidum Roxb. (= Hypo- 

 lepis helenensis Fee) from St. Helena, and there is little doubt that P. villoso- 

 viscidum Thouars from Tristan d'Acunha is the same. All these names are 

 quoted as synonyms of P. rugosulum Labill.; the name of THOUARS was pub- 

 lished in 1804 and consequently has priority, but having seen no specimens, 

 we shall not venture to create a new combination. 



H. rugosula is frequently referred, as a variety or subspecies, to Pol. 

 punctatum Thunb., the type of which is from Japan. A comparative study of 

 specimens from different regions will show, we believe, that H. rugosula is a 

 distinct species of more southern distribution. Both certainly belong to Hypo- 

 lepis, not to Dryopteris. 



In 1856 METTENIUS described some specimens from Chile, previously 

 referred to Pol. Poeppigii, as Hypolepis Poeppigiana, while he retained the spe- 



