Studies on Pacific Ferns 
Part I. Nomenclature Changes and Distributions of 
Some Species of Hymenophyllum, Arthropteris, Microlepia, 
Oleandra, and Adiantum 
G. Brownlie 1 
During a period of study at the Herbarium 
of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew the author 
spent some time examining collections of ferns 
from the South Pacific area. It was quickly 
apparent that in most groups there is some 
confusion in interpretation of the various 
species, and the following paper is an attempt 
to clear up some of these ; points. 
GENUS Hymenophyllum 
Differences between the specimens examined 
and the descriptions appearing in Copeland’s 
revision of the genus were noted in some small 
species of Hymenophyllum (sens. lat.). Con- 
sequently a detailed examination of this group 
was undertaken, with particular reference to 
those species possessing fronds with serrated 
margins which Copeland distinguished as Mer- 
ingium and Hymenophyllum . The following ob- 
servations, which are the result of these investi- 
gations, amount to a further revision of this 
group for the South Pacific region, excluding 
Australia and New Zealand. The present author 
prefers to retain, in the meantime, the generic 
name Hymenophyllum for all the species con- 
cerned, as he is not convinced of the validity of 
Copeland’s distinguishing characters. 
FIJI 
Hymenophyllum affine Brack. 
Hymenophyllum affine Brack. Expl. Exped. 
16, 265, 1854. 
Trichomanes macgillivrayi Bak. Ann. Bot. 
5, 195, 1891. 
The original description of this Fijian species 
1 Botany Department, University of Canterbury, 
Christchurch, New Zealand. Manuscript received April 
20, 1959. 
by Brackenridge states "sori few on upper half 
of the fronds — two-valved for 36 of its length, 
obovate, lips entire, — receptacle short, included,” 
while Baker describes his species as "sori one 
to a pinna near the base on the upper side — 
indusilum with a campanulate tube and sub- 
orbicular entire lips.” These two descriptions 
are not dissimilar, and a comparison of Baker’s 
type material with the illustrations of Bracken- 
ridge’s specimen tends to support the idea that 
these two are in fact the same species. Baker’s 
statement that his material was glabrous is not 
supported by an examination of the type, which 
has hairs on the stipe, lower rachis, and rhizome 
similar to those illustrated by Brackenridge. The 
difference in size between the two forms 
described is bridged by later collections from 
Fiji, and Baker’s specimen seems to be a large 
example only. 
Specimens examined (all from Fiji): Mc- 
Gillivray unnumbered (Kew, Baker’s type); 
Parks 20040 (Kew, B.M. 2 ); A. C. Smith 1368 
(Kew); H.M.S. Herald Bot. No. 138 (Kew); 
H.M.S. Herald Bot. No. 286 (Kew). 
Hymenophyllum pseudotunhridgense Watts. 
Hymenophyllum pseudotunhridgense Watts. 
Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 39, 7 66, 1915. 
Hymenophyllum macgillivrayi (Bak.) Copel. 
Philipp. J. Sci. 64, 60, 1937. 
In his section on H. macgillivrayi Copeland 
quotes Baker’s description of Trichomanes mac- 
gillivrayi, and supplements this with a further 
description based on a collection by J. Horne 
1877-78, illustrating this on plate 38. This 
illustration perfectly matches further Horne 
material at Kew which is distinct from Baker’s 
T. macgillivrayi. The involucre is longer and 
2 British Museum (Natural History). 
242 
