Christensen: Polypodium spelunca L. 3 



authority of Underwood believing that Underwood's 

 statement in the sentences quoted above was right. Let 

 us then examine the matter from the bottom. 



Polypodium speluncae was named by Linnaeus in the 

 first edition (1753) of Species Plantarum, p. 1093, and 

 described thus: "Polypodium fronde supradecomposita 

 pilosa: foliis lanceolatis pinnatis: piimis oppositis p'nna- 

 tifidis. FL Zeyl. 384. " 'Filix bermudensis elegans ra- 

 mosa pinnis rarioribus dentatis, cauliculis muscosa lami- 

 gine obductis. Pluk. aim, 155 t. 244 f. 2." "Habitat 



in Indus." 



Hereafter it is evident that the species was described 

 first in FL Zeyl. 384, and that the Indian plant described 

 there is that species, which Linnaeus in Spec. Plant, gives 

 the specific name: spelunca. In Flora Zeylanica, a 



work of Linnaeus, published in 1748, we find, p. 182, 



under Xo. 3M a "Polypodium fronde supradecomposita 

 pilosa, foliolis lanceolatis pinnatis, pinnis pinnatifidis, " 

 ,nd following other quotations we find again a reference 

 to Plukenet, but now quoted thus: "Mlix bermudensis 

 elegans ramosa, pinnis rarioribus profunde dentatis spel- 

 unca rupium innascens, caul culis muscosa lamigine 

 obductis.— Pluk. Aim. 155 t, 2U /• 2. Certo." 



The word "certo" (certainly, surely) means that 

 Linnaeus was convinced that his species, collected in Ceylon 

 (or India) by P. Hermannus, was the same as that plant 

 from Bermuda figured by Plukenet, and therefore he 

 later on took his specific name from Plukenet's short 

 description. But Linnaeus was not correct. Plukenet's 

 plate figures what is generally known as Dryopieris ampla 

 (Willd.) O. Ktze., a species not at all occurring in 

 East India, whence Polypodium speluncae came! The 



explanation of Underwood's mistake is, I think, that he 



had overlooked the quotation: "FL Zeyl. 384" in Spec. 

 Plant, which follows immediately after the diagnosis. 



