48 ON NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF CHEILANTHES. 
Mettenius ee no. 27; Hookerand Baker Synopsis Filicum, 
p. 134 
Lean De Bose’s plant. be identified with this species, and 
even if it can, why should not Michaux’s name be restored, and the 
plant named Cheilanthes lanosa 2 
ANTHES TOMENTOSA.—Cheilanthes tomentosa, Link Hort. 
Berol. ii. Fo 42? (1833). Cheilanthes Bradburit, Hook. Sp. Fil. ii 
p. 97, t. 1098 (1853). Chetlanthes tomentosa, wa aay ed. ond 
(1856), p- 592! and Hook. & Baker Syn. Fil. Spd 
sice.—Tennessee (Bradley), North Cardtina (Rupel, Curtis, 
Canty); Southern Dacota (Bradbury), and Texas (Drummond 
no. 354, Lindheimer no. 
Wang in Senta: Kunze (in Sill. Journ. vol. vi., p. SS says that 
“* Ch. tome , raised from Mexican spores, now com mon in 
European eed is new to the Flora of the United States.” The 
sam 
it doubtful what species is intended. in Mr. J. Smith’s ‘ Cata- 
logue of Ferns in the Royal Gardens, Kew,” wernt the name 
rn 
(1857), and in his “ Ferns: ae and Foreign ” ae ‘ Myrio- 
pteris tomentosa, Fee, = Ch. tomentosa, Link., Hook. Sp. Fil., t. 109,” 
is given as a species ‘‘ naltevatsa in British gardens,” but his 
references are e ually confusing, and, moreover, no plant referable 
beh either species is given in Mr. Baker’s catalogue of the Kew col- 
ection 
Query. —Is the plant of the Berlin and Leipzig gardens this 
species, and what is the authority for its Mexican vate tat ? Fée's 
reference to Drummond’s Texas plant is a manifest e 
3. CHEILANTHES LANUGINOSA. — Cheilanthes vestita, -iEnolke Fl. Bor. 
Am. il., p. 264 (1840); Sp. Fil. ii., p. 98, t. 1088 (non Swartz). 
Myriopteris gracilis, Fee ge Fil., p. 150, t. 29, fig. 6 (1850-52). 
gracilis, Mette Cheil., p. 36 (1859).  Cheilanthes 
a * Nuttall,” an 8 Manual, ed. 4th, p. ci. in addenda 
186 
Exsice. Siac saad — ey Illinois (Lapham), and 
Missouri (En ann) ; ountains (Bourgeau, no. 
3689, sa at capes and Califo ornia Whine Expedition) ; and south 
to E. Hale), New Mexico and Texas (Ch. Wright, nos. 818 
and 2195). 
y.—If Hooker’s name be inadmissible, ioe possible reason 
can Shek be for preferring Nuttall’s edbatisen 2 me to Fée’s earlier 
one? The latter’s description and fi gure are excellent, ve have 
serena a over even Hooker’s notice of Nutttall’s plant in ‘‘ Species 
** Cheilanthes vestita, Riehl non Sw., no. 529,” fide Fée loc. cit. 
What is the —— and species of Riehl’s plant ? His publication is 
unknown h 
T enclose specimens of each of the plants [ie., to Mr. Beka’ 
ot Heme re may be no doubt as to the —— we call by th 
