S8. PTERIDIOIDES. 301 



now under consideration; and the English name added 

 also implies this species. 



[Controversial on the places of growth. — In Phytologist, 

 vol. i. pp. 532 — 3, Mr. Newman wished to show that the 

 Linneau name of Eqiiisetmn fluviatile applied to the 

 branched form of E. limosum, and not (as then incorrectly 

 supposed by British botanists) to the species now under 

 consideration. Among other reasons adduced, he con- 

 tended that a positive proof was afforded in the idea ex- 

 pressed bj^ Linnaeus, of the larger size and altered appear- 

 ance of his fluviatile being caused " by its growing from 

 the bottom of deep water : this is the case," continues 

 Mr. Newman, " with Smith's limosum, but never with his 

 fluviatile, which, on the contrary, aifects loose gravelly 

 and sandy places unconnected with water". These are 

 the words of Mr. Newman, but the change of type is my 

 own, in order to fix attention on the unqualified assertion. 

 When objecting against Mr. Newman's transfer of the 

 name fluviatile, so as to substitute it in the stead of Umo- 

 sum, I added also a paragraph (Phytol. i. 588) on the 

 above statement, commencmg with these words : — " There 

 is a partial inaccuracy in the statement that Equisetum 

 fluviatile affects loose gi-aveUy and sandy places uncon- 

 nected with water" ; then proceeding to say that I had 

 seen the species in corn-fields and other places out of 

 water, but had also seen it by the sides of streams, and in 

 water with a deep muddy bottom. My counter-statement 

 was subsequently much perverted and misrepresented by 

 I)etty writers in the Phytologist. And even by the Author 

 of the History of British Ferns, who is usually fak and 

 candid enough in argument, I was treated with scant 

 justice in tliis instance. Accordingly I shall here put a 

 reply on record, likely to be quite as permanent as the 

 erroneous representations will prove. The question was 



