bree’s fern. 
231 
opinion, that the fern in question is a species distinct from dila- 
tatum ; and as such I hope to see it noticed in your forthcom- 
ing new edition of ^ British Ferns.’ 
In the ‘Naturalists’ Almanack’ for 1844, the species first 
received the name of Lastraea recurva. t 
The history of the fern is thus brought down to the present 
period ; and it seems needful to show why, after receiving such 
excellent evidence on the subject as I have quoted from the pen 
of Mr. Moore, and even adopting Mr. Moore’s view, as 1 subse- 
quently did, I should reject the name of dumetorum^ which has 
so clearly the claim of priority. My reasons for preferring Mr. 
Bree’s name are these. Mr. Bree’s figure and descriptions most 
evidently refer to the plant now under consideration, and the 
original specimens which he has most kindly transmitted to me, 
are beyond all question identical with my own. On the con- 
trary, Sir James Smith’s description, which I now proceed to 
quote, does not allude to any one of the distinguishing charac- 
ters of the species. 
“ Frond doubly pinnate ; leaflets pinnatifid, lobes with termi- 
nal, sharp, prickly teeth. Common stalk scaly. Cover orbicu- 
lar, flat, with a deep notch. ^ About one third the size 
of the last [ A. dilatatum}, with which it agrees in general habit 
and structure, but the leaflets are rather more ovate, and their 
segments more closely crowded together, less serrated at the 
sides, but their bristly teeth more numerous at the extremity 
of each segment. Masses few, small and rather scattered. Co- 
ver thin, pale, flat, not tumid nor kidney-shaped, but more orbi- 
cular, with a deep notch at the lower part, and finally turned 
loosely aside by the few rather large, shining, brown capsules, 
whose rings are very apparent. Sometimes the masses are pla- 
ced at the very edges or points of the segments, and the covers 
are often torn, but they are never tumid like a kidney, nor fixed 
closely by their outer margin, as those of A. dilataium are. I 
think these two species may always be distinguished by the si- 
tuation of their fructification and the nature of their covers.” J 
The author refers to the Polypod/ium rhceticum of the Bank- 
^ Phytologist, 773. 
f Nat. Aim. 1844, p. 23. 
Eng. Flor. iv. 282. 
