Species excluded from the Genus. 
Aspidium Braunianum Karst. Fl. Col. 1: 63 t. 31; Dryopteris Brauniana O. Ktze.; C. Chr. Ind. 255. — This 
characteristic species from the Andes of Colombia cannot naturally be referred to any of the subgenera 
of Dryopteris. In several characters it agrees with Ctenitis, but its wide-creeping rhizome and its 
whole peculiar habit, which is due to the broad lobate wing to the rachis, is very different from all spe- 
cies of that group. The veins are free but in spite of this I am fully convinced that it belongs to Sagenia. 
Aspidium pedatum Desv. Prodr. 244; Dryopteris pedata QO. Ktze.; C. Chr. Ind. 283. — This pretty Jamaican 
species, excellently illustrated in Kunze’s Farrnkr. tab. 75, is like A. Braunianum a free-veined Sagenia. 
FEE made it a separate genus: Camptodium which perhaps ought to be restored. 
Dryopteris Morlae (Sod.) C. Chr. Ind. 278; Polypodium Morlae Sod. Cr. vase. quit. 461. 1893 is no Dryopteris 
at all but a large species of Aspidium § Arcypieris. (RB)). 
Dryopteris apiifolia (Sw.) O. Ktze. = Polystichum apiifolum C. Chr, Ind. 578 is the type of the genus Max- 
onia, a derivate of Polystichopsis. 
Dryopteris paraguayensis C. Chr. Ind. 282 = Phegopteris subsimilis Christ, Ann. Cons. Jard. bot. Genéve 3: 
36. 1899 from Paraguay is probably a species of Alsophila (vy. supra p. 81). 
Dri ae esas (Thbg.) C. Chr. Ind. 287. — Under this name I included in Ind. Fil. a number of Ame- 
, the best known of which is the Chilean Polypodium Poeppigii. None of these forms belong 
to Erna but must be referred to Hypolepis. They differ from Dryopteris in the wide-creeping rhiz- 
ome that is clothed with rufous, articulated hairs, true scales being always absent. Their generally much 
divided lamina resembles not a little certain species of Dryopteris, groups of D. ampla and D. subin- 
cisa, but the sori are placed near the margin, sometimes covered by an unaltered lobe or tooth of the 
margins. It is impossible, I think, to separate these forms from the species commonly referred to Hy- 
polepis (H. repens etc.). 1 have not sufficient material for a thorough revision of these forms that are 
greatly misunderstood. According to modern ideas several of the forms are valid species, and a number 
of such have been described, but the nomenclature is very confused. I mention 
Hypolepis rugosula (Labill.) var. Poeppigii (Kze.) comb. nov. — Polypedium Poeppigii Kze. Linn. 9: 50. — 
Chile. Juan Fernandez. — I cannot separate this from the Australian H.rugosula (Lab.) as a species. 
From this METTENIUs distinguished a Chilean plant under the name Hyp. Poeppigiana (Fil. Lechl. 
I. 18), which he considered a true Hypolepis while Pol. Poeppigii Kze. to him was a Phegopleris. 1 am 
convinced that these Chilean forms are referable to a single species. 
apa obtusata (Pr.) Kuhn, Chetopt. 347; Cheilanthes obtusata Pr. Rel. Henk. 1: 64 t. 11 f. 1. 1825. 
— The sg shows a small, leaf, but otherwise it agrees closely with Poiypodium 
EWS 
pages Hook. et Grev. in Hook. 9. 1831, also from Peru (CRUcKSHANKS, MATHE 
no. 968, Kew!), which full-grown is cis bipinnate. 
In Brazil a series of forms occur which BAKER in FI. Bras. referred to Polypodium punctatum var. rigescens 
(Kze.) Fl. Bras. 1%: 503 t. 65. These forms should probably be referred to at least two species: Hypo- 
lepis brasiliana ales Kuhn and H. mitis Bat 
