2 American Fern Journal 



Mr. Rugg's article,* and the question is then: Can the 

 new binomial be considered rite published? I answer: 

 Xq! No one not very familiar with tropical ferns can 

 know which species Rugg is speaking about, because he 

 does not quote even one synonym. I seriously protest 

 against that kind of publishing of new names. In a paper 

 of purely phytogeographical contents, the author ought 



to use such binomials only that are published before. 

 An instance of a correct publication of a new name ap- 

 peared in the same number of the Journal, viz., in Mr. 

 Maxon's paper on Polypodia m Saffordii. 



But now as to the combination Dryopteris speluncae (L.) 

 Und. itself, I shall shortly again try to show that it is 

 founded on a false base. In my paper on some Swartzian 

 ferns, 1 I have dealt with the question once before. The 

 question being of special interest to American pteridolo- 

 gists I shall here repeat my conclusions about the matter 

 in English. 



Underwood wrote in 1907 the following: 2 "We repro- 

 duce here a single plate [/. e. Plukenet tab. 244] from the 

 latter, which is just now interesting because it figures a 

 fern peculiar to the caves of Bermuda and named from 

 that circumstance {Polypodia m speluncae L.), but one 

 which jugglers of the past generation of botanists have 

 placed outside its proper species, genus and even tribe, 

 and have attributed to nearly all parts of the tropical 

 world except, alas, the very island from which it origi- 



nally came!" 



£ 



the combination Dryopteris speluncae (L.) Und. on the 



— ^— _ — — _— _ 



*If this is the < se, the responsibility belongs not to Rugg bur 

 to Benedict, to whom, as noted in the paper, the material had 

 been referred for partial identification. Ed. 



l Aikfcr"Bot 9: M 6, 7. 1910. 



2 



Pop. Set Monthly 70: 504. 190 



* 



