— 286 — 



and L. pandnrifolius (Hook.), are essentially different. In the 

 „Synopsis Filicum" only 4 species belonging to the section Bolhitis 

 are described; later Baker has added to his section Gymnopteris 

 five others (Annals of Bot. 5 : 495) , but these are , after the 

 descriptions and figures given by the author, not true Bolhitis, but 

 may rather, I think, be considered species of Polyhotrya. I have 

 not seen specimens. 



The American species of true Bolhitis, 8 in number, fall into 

 two groups. 



1. Species with the pinnæ distinctly articulated to the rachis 

 and with the leaf towards the apex pinnatifid only. Hereto L. guia- 

 nensis. 



2. Species with the pinnæ very inconspicuously, if at all, 

 articulated, simply pinnated with a terminal pinna similar to the 

 lateral ones. 



. Possibly L. guianensis should form a peculiar subgenus, or 

 even genus, but as to several characters it agrees with the species 

 of the second group and connected with them by the andine L. 

 serratus. All the species have a creeping or wide-scandent rhizome, 

 which bears the leaves in two row^s; the distance between two 

 leaves is often considerable. An exception makes L. Bernoullii, 

 which has the leaves fasciculated on the top of the scandent 

 rhizome. 



The opinions as to the limitations of these species are very 

 different; in the herbaria two or even three species are often to 

 be found under the same name. In his latest publication Dr. 

 Lindman of Stockholm mentions four Brazilian species of this group, 

 while the handbooks only enumerate two. Dr. Lindman has in 

 a most friendly manner sent me his specimens of these ferns and 

 comparing them with the collection in the museum of the Botanical 

 Garden at Copenhagen, I found, that he has correctly separated 

 out three species from forms, which hitherto commonly are referred 

 to the old species Acrostichmn serratifolium Mert. , but that he 

 has named them incorrectly. As these ferns also by several other 

 authors are erroneously determinated, and as I am furnished with 

 original specimens of about all the species described, it is not, I 

 think, a useless work to give a review of all the species. My 

 descriptions are only supplementary to the original ones and do 

 not thus describe the whole plant, and as the most exact descrip- 

 tion does not give any clear idea of a plant, I have added to my 



