THE CRESTED BUCKLER FERN. 217 
dilatata, with some forms of which it accords in the variable, and 
therefore less important character of the subdivision of its parts. 
Lastrea cristata itself may be separated from spinulosa by its short 
triangular, and less divided pinnæ, and by their blunter, less deeply 
toothed pinnules; but the variety uliginosa is in some of its 
states much less easily known from it, the greater inequality of the 
pinnules on the lower pinne of spinulosa being almost the only dif- 
ference; indeed so closely do these merge into each other by means 
of transition forms of frond, that we are forced to the conclusion that 
all three—cristata, uliginosa, and spinulosa, are in reality as we 
place them, variations of one specific type. 
There are two versions of the name of this plant in use among 
British botanists—spinosa and spinulosa. We advisedly use the 
latter. The former has been revived by recent authors, on the 
grounds that Roth, who employed it in Flora Germanica (1800), was 
the first to correctly define the plant from the allied dilatata, and 
that Müller in the Flora Danica has “misprinted’ spinulosa for 
Weis’ name of spinosa, and under it figured the plant we now call 
Lastrea cristata. Now, Weis’ name Polypodium Filix-femina var. 
spinosa, as that of a variety merely, and altogether so incorrect as to 
the species, has no claim to notice; and Müller deseribes, but 
without name, and very well figures, two pinnz of spinulosa in 
the Flora Fridrichsdalina (1767), and his later figure in Flora 
Danica (1777), where he names it Polypodium spinulosum, is an 
exact representation of our spinulosa, and not of the species cristata. 
We therefore can neither subscribe to the assumption that Miiller’s 
name is a misprint, nor allow the claim made on behalf of Weis 
name; while Miiller has by many years the precedence over Roth. 
Equally, as we believe, are those writers in error, who deny that this 
plant is the Lastrea spinulosa of Presl; for Aspidium spinulosum as 
defined by Swartz in his Synopsis Filicum (p. 420) is the plant of 
Müller's figures above referred to; and Swartz moreover quotes 
Schkuhr’s t. 48, which perfectly represents spinulosa, excepting, 
however, the detached figures of indusia, d and e, these latter being, 
as we believe, erroneous, glandular indusia not having been found 
on the true spinulosa. Swartz’s plant, therefore, is our spinulosa, not 
dilatata, and that of Presl is the same species with a new generic 

