8 ARKIV FÖR BOTANIK. BAND 1. 



them, the illustrations in the great work Hooker et Greville, 

 Icones Filicum (1829). 



By the aid of the above mentioned original specimens it 

 was evident, that not the authentic plants, described as the 

 first species of this group in Swartz's Prodromus, and Sy- 

 nopsis Filicum, viz. muscoides and rex>tans, but rather diffe- 

 rent ones have been adopted by the distinguished english 

 botanists, and in consequence of this, many other small Tri- 

 chomanes are named and limited incorrectlv. After lookin^^ 

 through a good many Central and South American samples 

 and classing them as their characters required, I found my- 

 self obliged to give up the arrangement given in Hooker's 

 and Baker's Synopsis, and only after classifying all the- 

 species according to the original specimens met with in Herb. 

 Swartz, I was able to explain the meaning of some doubtful 

 drawings in the excellent work of Hooker and Greville, such 

 as their apodum, muscoides, reptans, quercifoUum etc. 



My objections, however, were not fresh ones, for I found 

 very soon, that Presl had observed the erroneous conception 

 of Hooker and Greville concerning ^mnscoides-^ and »reptans-» 

 (Hook, et Grev., Ic. Fil., t. 179 and 32). Presl calls the 

 former Trichomanes Hoohcri ^ and the latter Didymoglossiim 

 Hooheri ^. He refers to the Tr. muscoides Sw. (non Hook, et 

 Grev.) as a mere synonym the Mpodum» Hook, et Grev., Ic. 

 Fil., t. 117. 



Then we find that Kunze in 1847, only a year after the 

 publication of the first volume of Hooker's Species Filicum^ 

 pronounced the same opinion ^ and proved, from original speci- 

 mens of Swartz, to be seen in Herb. Willdenow, that »muscoi- 

 des» and rejjfnns ■ in Hooker's Spec. Fil. are not the true 

 species of Swartz. (He also states^, that »quercifoUum» Hook, 

 et Grev., Ic. Fil., t. 115, is no doubt a large, deeply pinna- 

 tifid form of Tr. reptans Herb. Swartz; but in this opinion 

 Kunze is no doubt mistaken.) 



We find the same opinion advanced by K. Müller,'* who 

 exactly describes both the old Tr. muscoides Sw. and the 



1 K. B. Presl. Hymenophyllaceae. 1843. p. 16. 



2 Ibidejii, p. 23. 



» G. Kunze, Bot. Zeit. 1847, j). 278, 3()0. 

 * Ibid, p. 279. 



'" Karl Müller, Über einige bisher verwechselte Arten der Farrngruppe 

 der Hymenophyllaceae. Bot. Zeit. 1854, j). 735, 737. 



