402 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XIV, October I960 
acteristic of P. lepidum are shown also in 
some of the Fijian specimens examined, notably 
Horne 728 and Seemann 821. Although the 
variability is greater in material from Fiji, I have 
no doubt that there is only one good species 
represented. The range of the species is extended 
to Aneityum by two collections from that island, 
previously identified as Polypodium blechnoides, 
which have the characteristic elongated fertile 
segments of the Samoan form. 
SPECIMENS EXAMINED: All at Kew; Fiji — 
Brackenridge 7, Seemann 821, Horne 728, Smith 
1898 and 6436; Samoa — Whitmee 128, Powell 
unnumbered; Aneityum — Milne 317, Kajewski 
886 . 
Ctenopteris hornet (Bak.) Brownlie, comb, 
nov. 
Polypodium hornei Bak. J. Bot. 17: 298, 
1879. 
This species appears to be closely related to 
the preceding one, and in fact may be only a 
form of it, but as I have seen no material other 
than Bakers type specimen, it is better retained 
in the meantime as distinct. It differs in the 
rounder sori, distinctly pubescent stipe, and the 
more plentiful pubescence on the rachis. The 
stipe is also markedly shorter. 
SPECIMEN EXAMINED: Fiji — Horne unnum- 
bered (Kew, Baker’s type). 
C. ON A COLLECTION FROM 
ANEITYUM ISLAND 
During the course of the above investigations 
the present author had reason to refer to Kuhn’s 
two papers "Reliquiae Mettenianae” in which 
several type specimens from Aneityum were as- 
cribed to Cuming during the years 1858-60. 
It was realised that these could not possibly have 
been collected by Cuming at the time indicated 
inasmuch as he had been in the Pacific in the 
1830’s. Specimens with the same collection num- 
bers as given by Kuhn were found at Kew and 
at the British Museum ( Natural History ) , those 
at Kew having no collector’s name but those at 
the British Museum having MacGillivray’s name 
added later. Through the kindness of the late 
Mr. A. H. G. Alston, photographs of the speci- 
mens of Humata aemula from the herbaria of 
Mettenius and Kuhn were compared with the 
sheets located in England. The example from 
Mettenius’ herbarium had a printed label with 
the number (64) and "Aneitum, New Hebrides, 
Feb. I860” with "Mountain woods on trees” 
added in writing in the same manner as on the 
English sheets. Other labels had been added by 
Mettenius. From the Kuhn herbarium the one 
sheet had written labels only, so it appears that 
those specimens may have been separated from 
an original sheet. Although the numbers were 
the same in every case, the dates varied on the 
four sheets from December, 1858, to February, 
I860, making it appear that the numbers were 
given by the collector to everything that ap- 
peared to be the same species. Comparison of 
other sheets at Kew and the British Museum 
showed the same discrepancy in dates. 
An account of MacGillivray by Maiden (1909) 
showed that he was resident in Sydney at the 
time and was known to make trips to the Pacific 
islands, so it appeared possible that he was re- 
sponsible for the collections. In fact, in the 
"Synopsis Filicum” Baker (1874) ascribed the 
specimens to MacGillivray without indicating 
the reason for his disagreement with Kuhn. 
The final solution came with a comparison of 
the writing on the original labels (the words 
"Mountain woods on trees” appearing on most 
of them) with correspondence from MacGil- 
livray in the Hooker letters at Kew. This proved 
conclusively that they were his collections and 
that Kuhn’s ascribing them to Cuming in his 
descriptive papers was an error. 
REFERENCES 
Hooker, W. J., and J. G. Baker. 1874. Synops. 
Filicum, 2nd ed. London. 
Kuhn, M. 1868. Reliquiae Mettenianae. Lin- 
naea 35: 385. 
1869. Reliquiae Mettenianae. Linnaea 
36: 40. 
Maiden, J. H. 1909. Records of Queensland 
Botanists. Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci. Pap. 
