158 



the name Phyllitis more correct, and in this he is followed 

 by the London Catalogue and by Druce. 



The Parsley Fern is another for which two different 

 generic names are used. Hooker and Druery retain 

 Allosorus, while all the rest employ the name Crypto- 

 gramme. 



In the remaining ferns the trouble seems to arise not so 

 much from accepting or ignoring the rule of precedence 

 in nomenclature as from the different ideas as to the 

 classification of them. Whatever generic name is used 

 for the Lady Fern, there seems also to be some trouble 

 in deciding whether it is to be considered a Spleenwort 

 or not. This difficulty seems to be increased in the case 

 of the fern known as the Alpine Polypody. Kew, Hooker 

 and Babbington put it under the genus Polypodium, 

 while the others do not approve of this, putting it under 

 Athyrium. 



All the above-mentioned authorities are agreed as to the 

 genus of our Common Polypody, but the tendency now 

 seems to be towards splitting off the Oak and Beech Ferns 

 and putting them into a separate genus — Phegopteris. 

 At any rate, the London Catalogue and Druce do so, and 

 the American botanists do likewise. 



As a final example, it might be mentioned that the little 

 :Scaly Spleenwort is retained under Asplenium by Lowe, 

 by Druery and by Kew, while Druce, the London Cata- 

 logue, Hooker and Babbington place it under Ceterach. 



All the above-mentioned books were compiled by men 

 who can be justly called authorities. They nearly all give 

 synonymous terms in brackets, but have deliberately 

 chosen one of two or more names as that which is correct. 

 But why all this variation ? 



War time, perhaps, is not the happiest time to remind 



one of this sort of worry, but surely botanical knowledge 



.has now sufficiently advanced for such questions to be 



