8 
THE .TOUJtNAL OF IJUTAKV 
botanists the universal adoption of the method-of-types principle 
itself seems the important thing, whatever rules may eventually he 
agreed upon for its application. The departures of the newly pro¬ 
posed Type-basis Code from the code of 1907 are all in the direction 
of reasonable elasticity, so that in the case of composite genera that 
have repeatedly to be subdivided, it will be possible to lix upon type- 
species in closer accordance with the demands of historic usage. 
This will mean doing away with many substitute generic names, 
often obscure, that have been brought forward for old and well-known 
ones in recent years. The case of the genus Fteris of Linnaeus 
(1753) is an excellent one in point. 
As is very well known, the name Fteris is usually applied to 
a world-wide assemblage of perhaps 150 pteridoid species having a 
single indusium, and the name Fteridium to the segregate genus of 
a few specks with double indusia, with F. aqiiilinum as type. How¬ 
ever, in several recent American floras (Rydberg, Flora of the 
Rocky Mountains , 1917 ; Small, Ferns of Tropical Florida , 1918; 
Britton, Flora of Bermuda, 1918), the name Fteris is used for 
F. aquilina and its allies, the species of Fteris in the usual sense 
being placed in Fycnodoria Presl, a genus founded upon a single East 
Indian species in 1851, and up to the present time never before taken 
out of the synonymy of Fteris itself. The confusion to be caused by 
the proposed retypification of Fteris , including the sweeping changes 
involved in the eventual renaming of its very numerous species, can 
be borne if the change is known to be necessary, but it cannot be 
justified if based solely upon a relentless interpretation of some minor 
code technicality. Evidently the technical requirement is judged to 
exist, under the code of 1907 ; but a review of the facts shows that 
this basis is slight, and that the suggested change is unnecessary as 
well as unreasonable. The more important facts may be summarized 
as follows:— 
Under the American Code (1907), Fteris as a Linnean genus 
would be typified through citations given in the fifth edition of the 
Genera Plant arum (1754). Since there are, however, no citations 
under Fteris in that work, it is necessary to typify the genus either 
with reference to citations given in the earlier editions of the Genera 
or by an analysis of the elements comprising Linnaeus’s concept of 
Fteris in the Species Flantarum. 
In the Species Flantarum (1753) the species of “ Fteris ” are 
arranged in three groups. The first, “ Frondihus simplicissimisf 
consists of four species now referred to the genera Faltonium , 77/- 
taria , and Fschatoyramme ; the second, “ Frondihus simpliciter 
pinnatis ,” etc., consists of seven species now referred to Fteris (5), 
Notholcena (1), and Gymnopteris (1); the third, “Frondihus suh- 
hipinnatis seu ramosisf consists of eight species, now placed in 
Doryopteris (1), Pteridiurn (2), Fteris (3), Fellcea (1), and 
Gleichenia (1). The total of 19 species, therefore, represents 10 
genera belonging to two families of ferns. Of these, no fewer than 
eight species belong to Fteris in the historic and usual sense. None 
of the species is of pronounced economic importance. Sixteen of the 
19 are altogether American, two are Chinese, and only one (viz., 
