IMPROVEMENT IN THE ARRANGEMENT OF FERNS. 867 



genera by the application to them of sound and well considered princi- . 

 pies is greatly to be desired. Of the few forms which Hooker has 

 admitted as sub-genera or sections, there is one which he himself con- 

 demns as wholly without sufficient distinctions, receiving it as he states 

 on the authority of eminent men who regarded it even as a good genus. 

 I refer to Phegopteris Presl, for adopting which I cannot see any 

 reasonable pretence. Yet Prof. Eaton, in Gray's Manual, last edition, 

 not only acknowledges it as a genus but even places it close to 

 Aspidiinae at some distance from Polypodium. This change I must 

 strongly condemn, at least until I am informed of some reason for it, 

 which has hithesto escaped my attention. There was something plausi- 

 ble in the idea that Struthiopteris and Onoclea represented a special 

 mode of forming the fertile frond, one in Polypodiinae, the other in 

 Aspidiinae, but as Hooker declares that he has seen the indusium of 

 Struthiopteris, the two must now stand next to one another, separated 

 only by the venation. Their reunion in one genus in the face of so 

 great a difference in the fronds, seems hardly admissable, though con- 

 sistent with Hooker's course in other cases. But to what tribe do 

 they really belong? Mettenius, the first observer of the indusium of 

 Onoclea, describes it as proceeding from underneath the sorus and 

 forming a sort of broken cup, in strict conformity with which ia 

 Hooker's figure in the ' Genera' from his own observations. This being 

 so, Oooclea cannot belong to Aspidiinae, as the position given it by 

 Hooker would seem to imply, and which is the common opinion. Still 

 less does it approach Aspleniinae, where Presl places it. It seems 

 certainly to belong to the Hypindusiate section of Polypodiaceae, and 

 apparently to be nearest to Peraneminae, as the cup-like indusium is 

 ragged and somewhat split in the margin. It may be doubted whether 

 Cystopteris belongs to Aspidiinae, though I do not see where to place 

 it better. The name may be called in question. Bernhardi's genus had 

 remained in neglect until it was adopted by Sir J. E. Smith, who 

 thought fit to correct what he regarded as a bad kind of name, by an al- 

 teration which retains the author's idea but gives it a better form. Had 

 this improved name (Cystea) been accepted it would have been better, 

 and at that time the change might easily have been effected, but Sir J. B. 

 Smith's death followed closely on the publication of his fourth volume 

 containing the ferns. Succeeding botanists have not supported him, and 

 we have since been flooded with so many names of the same kind quite 



