196 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 



fern we have also Thalius' remarkable diagnosis of the plant 

 under the good liinomial caption Siruthiopteris Cordi. All this 

 comment from our part is, of course, more or less useless perhaps, 

 against a system that tolerates, any blunder or name provided 

 it enjoy a certain priority in being perpetrated since 1753. It 

 may serve, however, at least this much in as far as it calls attention 

 to the mistake and its explanation. 



The question of the application of the name Struthiopieris 

 apart, we see no reason why Matteucia Todaro, should be used 

 for the Ostrich fern, when another name Pteretis Rafinesque, 

 quite valid as far as we know, antedates it by nearly fifty years. 

 For reasons about to be referred to, it seems to us a very diihcult 

 matter to understand by what principles a name is often applied 

 by our modern nomenclators. The followers of the Vienna Code 

 will probably pay little attention to Rafinesque's publication of 

 Pteretis,^ because under a system without even the semblance of 

 fast rules, it will be easy to find "clauses" whereby it can be put 

 back into oblivion. The followers of the American or New York 

 Codes have disregarded Thelypteris Schmidel (1760), an older name 

 than Dryoptens Adanson (1763),^ also rejected Pentaphylloides 

 Duhamel (1755), for the later Dasiphora Raf. (1838). The logic 

 of such procedure is difficult to see; concerning the reason or 

 motive we will not venture a statement though perhaps we could. 

 Ignorance of the fact of the publication of Thelypteris or Penta- 

 phylloides need scarcely be considered. If Thelypteris is to be re- 

 jected in favor of a later Dryopteris because there was a different 

 apphcation of the name in its first pre-Linnaean publication, the 

 name, Struthiopieris as used for Osniunda Spicant Linn, stands 

 a parallel case. Then why is -the latter acceptable and the former 

 not? No reason being given for the rejection of Thelypteris and 

 Pentaphylloides it may be supposed that perhaps there is none 

 or there is no good one. Any way the logic of it is quite incom- 

 prehensible to us, unless there be a motive for ignoring it without 

 any need or semblance of reason. 



Now that Pteretis is found to antedate Matteucia we wonder 

 whether it will be found worth v or acceptable in spite of its pri- 

 ority. We have seen so many cases lately of rejected names 

 boasting priority since 1753, that we feel that all the much vaunted 



1 Rafinesqup, C. S., Am. Monthly Mag. II., p. 268, (181S). 



2 Britton.iN. L. 111. I<'1 .N. Am. I., p. 17, II., p. 262, (191,?)- 



