156 
The Philippine Journal of Science 
1915 
has j ust been outlined. It is a small group of ferns, mostly rare 
species, but found from New Guinea to the Malay Peninsula, 
which are unquestionably related to certain species of Eupoly- 
podium, and not to those species of Polypodium which represent 
the parental type of Prosaptia. Having separate origin in Eu- 
polypodium, Prosaptia and Acrosorus cannot possibly be united 
into one natural genus or subgenus. Without violence to na- 
ture, both of them might be combined with Polypodium, and the 
only objection to this is one of convenience. Nobody who knows 
the ferns at all believes that Prosaptia and Acrosorus have any 
relative affinity with Davallia, and yet the Supplement, follow- 
ing the Index, continues to refer them to that genus. 
Aglaomorpha again is a good natural group. The limits 
which should be assigned to it are a matter of judgment. It is 
decidedly more distinct from Polypodium, even from such a | 
species as Polypodium Heracleum, than it is from Dryostachyum. 
Dryostachyum may be included in Aglaomorpha, or might be 
kept distinct if one chooses, but there is no reason for main- 
taining Dryostachyum and not Aglaomorpha. The treatment of 
Thayeria is unreasonable to the point of aggravation. Van Al- 
derwerelt reduced it to Drynaria, by an obvious failure to recog- 
nize the real nature of the genus, as he proved by describing 
a perfectly good Drynaria in his “section” Thayeria. Chris- 
tensen, although he cites a publication, accompanied by a photo- 
graph, which must make the real nature of Thayeria plain, has 
continued to treat it as a Drynaria. If he were to treat it as 
anything but a separate genus, the only reasonable course would 
have been to reduce it to Polypodium, for its nearest known 
affinity is certainly to his P. meyenianum, which I prefer to 
regard as Aglaomorpha. In his treatment of Davallodes, Chris- 
tensen has tried to stand on both sides of a rather high fence. 
He includes in Davallia a species which happened to have a 
name there and not in Microlepia, even though the name was 
given by an author who did not distinguish between Davallia 
and Microlepia, but has transferred the species originally de- 
scribed in Davallodes to Microlepia, and has assuredly accom- 
plished nothing beyond an addition to the list of synonyms. 
In the treatment of Loxogramme, he has again kept free of 
the solid ground, reducing most of the species to Polypodium, 
but balking at Loxogramme dimorpha. But L. dimorpha is 
beyond any question one of the same group with the other 
members for which he provides new names. Either L. dimor- 
pha is also a Polypodium, or it represents a new genus which 
