184 132 
guish this D. Feei specifically from D. augescens, as the two are connected by all 
intermediate forms. I call the large Mexican form 
var. puberula (Fé6e). 
Syn. Aspidium puberulum Fée, 10. mém, 40. 1865. 
Nephrodium puberulum Bak. Syn. 495. 1874. 
Dryopleris Feei C. Chr. Ind. 264. 1905. 
In structural characters scarcely different from D. augescens, but generally 
larger: stipe up to 70 cm long, stramineous, glabrous, lamina 40—60 cm long: 
pinne 15—20 cm long by 2 cm wide. Veins about 10, prominent beneath, the 
lower 2—3 meeting at sinus, where as a rule a distinct apophysis is to be found. 
Undersurface softly villous and sometimes glandulose. The rhizome is very long- 
creeping. Segments generally very acute and close. 
An extremely variable variety; I refer hereto specimens coming very near to 
typical augescens, others very much resembling JD. normalis and D. patens, and 
others again which are not unlike smaller forms of D. oligophylla. Still I have no 
doubt that all these forms must be referred here and united with D. augescens. 
The most difficult problem to solve is, however, whether the whole series of forms 
is to refer to a separate species or ought to be united with D. normalis. The form 
from Texas called D. normalis var. Lindheimeri seems to show that we have only 
one very variable species, which should be named D. augescens, but on the other 
hand it is unnatural to unite into a single species the typical forms of D. normalis 
and D. augescens, and I prefer here to refer the different forms to two species. 
It is interesting to note that we here have another example of a series of 
forms which in their distribution is quite analogous with the series D. opposita — 
D. panamensis and D. Sprengelii — D. Mercurii, all dealt with in my previous 
papers, and with D. tefragona and the intricate forms of it from Mexico — Central 
America. In all these series the first named species is found in the West-Indies, 
where it varies only a little, while the second species is mostly developed in Cen- 
tral America, where it varies extraordinarily and where some forms occur, which 
scarcely can be distinguished from the corresponding island-species. 
Aspidium puberulum Fée was described after specimens from Mexico, near 
Huatusco, SCHAFFNER nr. 247 part., which I have not seen. Fournier (Pl. Mex. 
1: 95) refer here some specimens of the BourGEAU collection which I have seen in 
the museum of Paris. With these specimens agree more os less the following; 
Mexico: Lower California, Cape Region, BRANDEGEE (W); Tres Marias Islands, E. W. NELSON nr. 
4316 (W); MarrBv nr. 161 (W) — Cuernavaca, BourGEAu nr. 1318 (H) — Puebla, ARSENE 
nr. 1614, 1690, 1820, 1991, 2006, 2026, 2036, 2145, 2150, 2151 (RB) — Morelia, ARSENE 
(RB, C) — Orizaba, H. E. SEATON nr. 67 (W) — Jalisco, near Guadalajara, Rose and PAINTER 
nr. 7416 (W); Epw. PALMER nr. 455 (W); Colima, Epw. ParMER nr. 1229 pt. (W) — Aca- 
pulco, Epw. ParMER nr. 442 (W) — Tamaulipas, near Victoria, Epw. ParMERn nr. 183 and 
