224 JOURNAL BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. XIV. 
familiar with F.-mas in all its forms, of course saw at once that Clarke’s 
plant was a distinct species, and named it, as a species, accordingly. Beddome 
then, in his Supplement, said that the European type of N. F.-mas did 
not occur in India. And, partly misled by the heterogeneous mass of plants 
named F.-mas in herbariums, and because the Kashmir and Punjab speci- 
mens above cited had not (except Jacquemont’s, which I had not then seen) 
then been found, I used to say the same. But there is no longer room for the 
slightest doubt, Trotter’s plant, from the Rembidra Yy. in Kashmir, which 
he noted as growing “ in circular patches, like great shuttlecocks,” struck me, 
and I then saw that his plant from Kullu, gathered previously in 1887, was 
the same. Shortly afterwards I found in Mr. Gamble’s collection two fronds, 
collected by Mr. McDonell in Chamba in 1882, which Mr. Levinge had correct- 
ly named N. F.-mas , — one as a variety. And Trotter’s discovery in Kashmir 
was followed by collections made by McDonell, MacLeod, and Duthie in 1894. 
There is considerable difference, in this material, in the colour of the scales on 
stipes, — those on some specimens being very dark, and those on others very 
pale, — and some difference in cutting ; but I think all the specimens I have 
noted above can be matched from among European specimens, I have 
separated, under the next species, N. parallelogrammum , Kuuze (under 
Aspidium ), not only Aspidium patentissimum, Wall., but also Clarke’s varieties 
Nos. 3 and 5, khasiana and fibrillosa , because I do not think they can be 
brought under N. F.-mas. Other plants, either given as synonyms or un- 
warrantably degraded to the rank of varieties of N. F.-mas in the Synopsis , 
or by Clarke and Beddome, will be found given as distinct species where I think 
they ought to be put. 
I am aware that pteridologists are not agreed that even the European forms 
of F.-mas all belong to the same species, but I will not go into that 
question. I could sort the above-cited specimens into N. F.-mas and N. pseudo- 
mas ; but as I have not seen any of these forms growing in India I think it 
better not to do so, especially in view of my treatment of the so-called varieties 
I have placed under the next species. Hooker said, in the * Species 
FiUcum ’ : — “ East India, continental. The normal form is perhaps the least 
common, and mainly confined to N.-W. India, often at great elevations, 
Jacquem., Edgeworth, S. & W., Wallich (Aspidium patentissimum , Wall. 
Cat. 340), Sikkim, alt. 8-10,000', and even 15,000' (and then small) Hk. Fil. 
et T. Niliriris, Wight, Bedd. Nepdl Wall., var. $ is perhaps the next 
most common.” 
11. N. parallelogrammum, Kunze (under Aspidium ), in Linnsea 
xiii. p. 146, N. Filix-mas. Rich., var. (3 parallelogrammum , Hook. Sp. Fil, 
iv. 116 ; “ pinnate or rarely subpinnate, their segments oblong-parallelogram , 
very close and compact. ” 
