100 



On the occurrence in South Australia of two 

 Previously Unrecorded Ferns (filicesj. 



By Edwin Ashby, M.B.O.U. 

 [Read May 13, 1915.] 



SlTUATION- 



During the first week in January last (1915) I had an 

 opportunity to inspect the cliffs on the River Murray, in the 

 Hundred of Younghusband, commencing about half a mile 

 above the so-called township of Younghusband, on the left 

 bank of the river. The cliffs are nearly half a mile in length 

 and, I should judge, about 100 feet in height, and almost 

 vertical. They face a little to the south of east. The rock 

 is of a porous nature, the moisture from the river rising by 

 capillary attraction for several feet above the level of the 

 water. The lower portion of the cliffs has been worn away 

 in places into shallow shelves, and here and there softer layers 

 of rock have weathered away for some distance back from the 

 river front, forming shallow caves. The ferns are growing 

 more or less continuously for almost the whole length of the 

 cliffs, but rarely higher than a few feet above water level. 

 They are growing luxuriantly in the seams of softer material, 

 overhung by horizontal layers of harder rock. In some cases 



1 should judge that the fronds of Pteris tremula were fully 



2 feet long. I was only able to land in one or two places and 

 identify two species of ferns, both I believe previously 

 unrecorded from this State ; it is quite possible that further 

 investigations may reveal others. 



Description. 



I had no difficulty in recognizing one of the ferns as 

 Pteris tremula, R. Br., a fern familiar to all who visit the 

 damp tree-fern gullies of Victoria, New South Wales, and 

 elsewhere under similar conditions. 



The other species was evidently an Aspidiinn, and I con- 

 cluded that as Professor Ralph Tate's "Handbook of the 

 Flora of Extratropical South Australia" gives the Murray 

 Cliffs as a locality for Aspidium jnoJJe, Swartz, that these 

 specimens must be referable to that species. I think it pos- 

 sible that that species has been included in our flora through 

 misidentification, but without reference to the original speci- 

 mens this cannot be determined. 



