UNDERWOOD: REVIEW OF THE GENERA OF Ferns 253 
review of the 189 fern genera proposed by the forty-three authors 
who wrote on ferns during the period 1753-1831 arranged in 
chronological order, and suppemented by an alphabetical tabular 
summary of the resulting necessary synonymy : 
1753 
Linnaeus (Species Plantarum) recognized the following genera 
of ferns : 
I. ONOCLEA (1062) with a single species, O. sensibilis. The 
- generic name was established in Amoen. Acad. 3: 20. 1751, and 
Linnaeus needlessly displaced an earlier name, Angiopteris Mitch., 
which he quotes as a synonym. The practice thus early inaugu- 
rated by Linnaeus of arbitrarily replacing well-established names 
for others was commonly followed by his successors, and even yet 
is practiced in some quarters, and has been the cause of much of 
the present unsettled condition. 
2. OpPniocLossuM (1062) with O. vulgatum and five other 
species of which two are now species of Lygodium. The genus 
was founded by Tournefort (Inst. 548. AJ. 325. 1700), on the Euro- 
pean O. vulgatum, and was thence accepted by Linnaeus (Gen. 
Pl. 322. 1737) and in Hort. Cliff. 472, where three species were 
noted. According to Sprengel this name was first used by Tragus, 
LSet. 
3. OsMUNDA (1063) was a curious s composite based on seven- 
teen species* now distributed among many diverse genera. The 
genus dates back to Tournefort (Inst. 547. p/. 324. 1700) and is 
based on the European O. regalis; it was first adopted by Lin- 
naeus (Gen. Pl. 322. 1737) who cites Tournefort, and in Hort. 
Cliff 472, five species are noted. According to Sprengel, the 
name was first employed by Lobel in 1571. 
4. AcROsTICHUM (1067) included twenty-five species which 
are known to-day under the genera Asplenium, Woodwardia, Notho- 
laena, Woodsia, Gymnogramma, Schizaea, Todea and others. 
The original Acrostichum appears to be that of Linnaeus (Gen. 
Pl. 322. 1737) who cites numerous figures of Plumier, and Tour- 
* We have already discussed the generic limitation Cf Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 
25: 522-525. 1893. The recent attempt to abandon the generic name, Osmunda, 
is contrary to both the "e and the letter of nomenclature. C/. Proc. Biol. Soc. 
Washington, 13 : 63. 
