—54— 



point some results of actual experiments will soon be announced 

 which will quite effectually dispose of this vexed problem. 



3. In Mr. Gilbert's paper (page 13), I am quoted as saying 

 that I "examined Pursh's specimens at the British Museum." If 

 I said so, which seems scarcely credible, I am at fault, for the 

 place was the Kew Herbarium, where a number of Pursh's plants 

 may be found. So far as I know, none of his plants are to be 

 found at the British Museum. 



4. Finally Mr. Davenport (page 23), cites me as supporting 

 Professor Eaton's erroneous conclusion that Botrychium tene- 

 brosum is "a weakly developed growth of B. matricariae folium." 

 At least the swamp species of Central New York (Baldwinsville), 

 which I take to be A. A. Eaton's B. tenebrosum, has surely noth- 

 ing to do with B. neglectum. The Baldwinsville plant was long 

 confused with B. simplex with which it has little in common, but 

 no one who has seen the plant growing ever thought of mistaking 

 it for B. neglectum, which also grows commonly in another part 

 of the same town. In June, 1898, I made a trip to Baldwinsville 

 with the express- purpose of studying this plant in the field with 

 a view of publishing it as a species, but the season was late and 

 I secured only two immature specimens, so that publication was 

 postponed.. During the following summer Mr. Eaton described 

 his species which I recognized as probably the same as the Bald- 

 winsville plant. I am certain that it has nothing to do with B. 

 neglectum and no one who ever saw the two plants growing 

 would think of confusing them. — Lucien M. Underwood. 



SPECIFIC CHARACTERS IN BOTRYCHIUM TENEBROSUM. 



In the January issue of The Fern Bulletin (X. I., p. 22) 

 Mr. Davenport tabulates his objections to Botrychium tenebrosum 

 as a species. I agree with him perfectly that "difference in time 

 of fruiting and character of its habitat" are not specific charac- 

 ters, and have never so considered them; but they are facts of 

 life history that my critic himself would give in a diagnosis, and 

 would not expect them to be received for more than their value. 

 When he confines his argument to these things, and leaves one to 

 infer that they are the only differences, he shows a surprising 

 lack of candor, as anyone may satisfy himself by reference to my 



