—41— 



indeed being placed in seeming antagonism to Dr. Underwood, 

 who has done and is doing so much valuable work that I trust 

 will live long after my own is forgotten, and for whom I enter- 

 tain the strongest feelings of friendship, but fidelity to my own 

 convictions compels me to dissent from his views and to place my 

 own on record, as I believe that here, at least, he is wholly in the 

 wrong. 



The Botrychiums have always had for me a singular fascina 

 tion, and I have neglected no opportunity to increase my knowl- 

 edge of their characters during my more than twenty years' fa- 

 miliarity with them. Since 1873 innumerable specimens, in a 

 great variety of forms, and from a wide range, have passed 

 through my hands, so that I feel justified in claiming to have 

 some knowledge of them and their relations to one another. I 

 was the first in this country to publish an account of their spore* 

 and budf characters, and to call attention to Milde's masterly 

 analysis. 



Heretofore I have supposed that Lamarck's species ( Osmunda 

 biternata ) had received a very careful consideration and its po- 

 sition properly determined, not from any superficial examination 

 of which Milde was incapable, but from a thorough study of its 

 structural characters and all available material, yet at last I learn 

 through the medium of the notes alluded to, that " no one had 

 looked at it close enough to see that it was a good species !'' Pray 

 then, why did Lamarck, and upon what grounds publish it ? 

 Why Michaux? No one questioned its specific rank until Milde's 

 masterly analysis demonstrated its varietal character. 



I have myself, in Botanical Gazette for April, submitted evi- 

 dence enough to show that there are no structural characters of 

 specific value, and that its early fruiting period is of varietal im- 

 portance only. I have shown also that the bud is not smooth, as a 

 rule, but pilnse, and that the spores are exactly the same as in all 

 of the other forms, including the European and Japan forms, and 

 there is not a scintilla of new evidence to show that any charac- 

 ter has been overlooked, or any not already known, and disposed 

 of, brought forward. So that in my judgment, the resurrected 

 claim for specific recognition cannot be maintained, nor is there 

 any grounds for the assertions in the Bulletin. 



At the same time I hope the readers of the Bulletin will 

 respond generously to Dr. Underwood's request for notes and 



*Notes on B. Simplex, Salem, 1877. 



tVernation in Botrychia, Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, Jan. 1878. 



