Kirx.—On Nephrodium decompositum and N, glabellum. 399 
springing from the apex of the rhizome, usually from 12-24 inches 
in height. Stipes from half to two-thirds the length of the entire 
frond, clothed with scattered chaffy scales and fine pubescence, angular, 
channelled ; the frond is from 7-10 inches wide with the apex elongated 
and the lowest pair of secondary pinne much developed, so that its 
general outline is pentangular acuminate ; bi- or tri-pinnate, membranous, 
villous or pubescent ; rachis slender ; lowest pair of pinne much the largest, 
5-7 inches long, 3-4 inches wide, obliquely deltoid ; upper pinnules lanceo- 
late, pinnate, or deeply pinnatifid, ultimate segments ovate or rhomboid 
ovate with acutely toothed lobes. Sori attached nearer the margin of the 
segment than the midrib. 
In N. glabellum the rhizome is short, stout, densely clothed with the 
wiry bases of old fronds, unbranched. Fronds from 4-6 in number, tufted, 
springing from the apex of the rhizome and usually of less size than those 
of N. decompositum. Stipes always more than half the length of the entire 
frond, scaly at the base, naked above, reddish, channelled, from 7-10 inches 
long, 6-9 inches wide, deltoid, acuminate, twice or thrice pinnate, slightly 
coriaceous, glossy ; lowest pair of pinne 4-5 inches long, 2-3 inches wide, 
less obliquely deltoid than in N. decompositum, with the basal pinnules much 
less developed, and rachis more prominently winged ; segments pinnate or 
deeply pinnatifid, with the basal lobes overlapping so as to form a con- 
nected line on each side of the rachis of the lowest pinne ; lobes obtusely 
toothed, veins prominent. Sori equi-distant between the margin of the 
segment and the midrib. | 
While freely admitting the close resemblance in the cutting and in the 
general outline of these plants, the essential differences indicated appear to 
me sufficient to warrant these plants being considered specifically distinct, 
but it is necessary to offer a few remarks on their nomenclature, which is 
somewhat confused, the specific name “ glabellum " having been applied to 
both. 
The earliest description of either is that of N. decompositum, by R. 
Brown, in his “Prodromus Flore Nove Hollandie," p. 149 (1810). The 
next is that of N. glabellum, by Allan Cunningham, in Hooker's ** Com- 
panion to the Botanical Magazine," IL, p. 867, and which is clearly the 
plant to which the name is now applied. 
In the “Flora Nove-Zelandie,” IL, p. 89, under N. decompositum, 
Brown's plant is described and figured as var. a. glalellum, N. glabellum, 
Cunn. Although corrected by Sir W. J. Hooker, in *' Species Filicum,” 
IV., p. 146, owing to the wide circulation of ** Flora Novs-Zelandim " the 
error has become generally circulated, and caused much confusion, 
especially in this colony. 
