LINDMAN, AMERICAN SPECIES OF TRICHOMANES SM. if 



•»muscoidesA of Hook, et G-rev. t. 179 (which, as before stated, 

 is Trich. Hoolceri Presl). 



Sturm's treatment of this group in Flora Brasiliensis, 

 fasc. 23 (l'Sö9), is very good and the descriptions correct and 

 adequate, although it must be confessed, that a mere descrip- 

 tion without trustworthy drawings can never be fully relied 

 on by those, who collect and study plants, so uniform as these. 



Vax den Bosch has given in his Synopsis ^ a complete 

 enumeration of the Hymenophyllaceae, and has quoted the 

 ])receding autliors correctly, although in several cases he takes 

 the species for granted and enumerates as a species a mere 

 synonym, without any critical observation, as the r>apo(lumi 

 Hooker et (xreville, a synonym, which he places as a species 

 by the side of Tr. muscoides Sw. It is to be regretted, that 

 the new species of this author described in a later, partly 

 posthumous work,' were not illustrated, as is the case with 

 his magnificent work Hymenophyllaceae Javanicae. 



It is sur])rising that no attention was paid to all these 

 explanations, when the Synopsis Filicum by Hooker and 

 Baker was published. The earlier conception as to Tricho- 

 manes (sect. Didymoglossum) is retained; in the second edi- 

 tion (18S3) the true Tr. mnscoides Sw. is represented by the 

 apodum Hook, et Grev., and the muscoides Hook, et Grev. 

 (non Sw.) appears bj^ its side in a more confused manner 

 than before, for it seems to include also Tr. Vahstianum K. 

 Müll, and several other forms, which belong to quite diffe- 

 rent tj^ies; the >>pusilhim Sw.» has not got its right place, 

 for its synonym is •i>quercifolhim>-> Hook, et Grev., etc.; the 

 ^reptans» is not Swartz's species, but confounded with Kunze's 

 sphenoides. 



H. Christ in his important work :i>Die Farnkräuter der 

 Erde», 1897, p. 26, 27, has described some of the common 

 species I am going to deal with here. As regards Trich. 

 mnscoides Sw., reptans Sw., and pusiJhim Sw. in his book, it 

 is evident, that not one of them is quite the same species as 

 the original ])lant of Swartz, perhaps not even muscoides; 

 the rvptan>t Sw. is together with )^s})he)ioides Kunze» put as a 



^ R. B. Van den Bosch. Syno])sis Hymenophyllacearuni. 1859, Neder- 

 landstrh Kruidknndig Archief, vicrde Decl, ]). 341. 



-' Hymenojihyliaceas novas . . . ceii Synojjseos Supplementum exjjosuit 

 Van den Bosch, Nederl. Kruidk. Archief, 18(j"l. 5: 2. and 1863, W. 2. 



