POLYPODIACBAE 



67 



ADIANTUM Linnaeus 



ADIANTUM sp. 



Capillus veneris amboinicus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 77, t. 3J>, f. 1. 



Not represented in our Amboina collections. The figure rather 

 strongly resembles the Philippine Adiantum opacum Copel. Lour- 

 eiro erroneously referred it to Adiantum capillus veneris Linn., 

 while Pritzel placed it with equal error under Adiantum aethio- 

 picum Thunb. Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 165, suggested 

 that it might be Adiantum pulchellum Blume, but if correctly 

 drawn the figure represents a species quite different from the 

 one described by Blume. 



ADIANTUM sp.? 



Dryopteris silvestris III petraea Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 74. 



Hasskarl, Neue Schlussel (1866) 165, has suggested that this 

 may be Adiantum pulchellum Blume. It is probably not Blume's 

 species, but is certainly an Adiantum or a Lindsaya. 



POLYPODIUM Linnaeus 



POLYPODIUM SINUOSUM Wall. Cat. (1829) no. 2231, nomen nudum; 

 Hook. Sp. Pil. 5 (1863) 61, t. 284. 

 Scolopendria II minor Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 84. 

 Amboina-, Kati-kati, Robinson PI. Rumph. Amb. October 17, 1913, 



on trees in mangrove swamps. 



There is some doubt as to whether or not Scolopendria II 

 minor Rumph. is Polypodium sinuosum Wall, as here interpreted. 

 It seems probable that more than one species of Polypodium is 

 included in Rumphius's description. 



POLYPODIUM PHYMATODES Linn. Mant. 2 (1771) 306. 



Polypodium excavatum Roxb. Hort. Beng. (1814) 75 (type!). 

 Polypodium indicum II minus Rumph. Herb. Amb. 6: 80, t. 35, f. 2. 



Amboina, Ayer putri, Robinson PL Rumph. Amb. July 28, 1913, 



epiphytic at low altitudes. 



The specimen is very typical Polypodium phymatodes Linn, 

 and agrees with Rumphius's description and figure. Burman 

 f., Fl. Ind. (1768) 233, referred it to Polypodium dissimile Linn., 

 a species of doubtful status, based on a figure of Plukenet's, 

 drawn from American material. It is the type of Polypodium 

 excavatum Roxb., as originally published in the Hortus Bengal- 

 ensis, by citation of the Herbarium Amboinense; see C. B. 

 Robinson in Philip. Journ. Sci. 7 (1912) Bot. 415. It may not, 

 however, be the species actually described by Roxburgh under 

 the same name in Calcutta Journ. Nat. Hist. 4 (1844) 485. 



