pdf 25 MB - BSBI Archive

NOTES ON THBv FERN-FLORA OF CHINA. 233
as a variety distinct from the northern one, relying, as I learn from
him by letter, on the circumstance that in the former the transverse
diameter of the pinnule is greater than th.e longitudinal, whilst in the
latter the reverse is the case. But the considerable number of speci-
mens from both parts of the empire which I have been enabled to coin-
pare couclusively prove the instability of this character, and that it is
not possible to distinguish two well-defined forms.
Adlantum dlajjlianum, Bl., which, though very close to, is yet, I think,
scarcely identical with A. setalosum, J. Sm., is abundant at Amoy,
growing in w^ells, and on the shaded perpendicular sides of ditches.
Though I have seen no Indian specimens, I think it most probable
that my Adiantum Guilehni must be merged in A. EdfjeioorfJdi, Hook.,
to which, judging from the character only, I had approximated it : a
specimen from Pere David has the rachis conspicuously flagelliferons,
whilst specimens of A. Capillm-Junonis differ equally in the absence or
presence of this naked rooting prolongation. What further disposes
me to this conclusion is, that I have received from the same excellent
naturalist, gathered on shaded rocks of the mountains of northern
China, two other plants hitherto supposed to be peculiar to India,
and there, I believe, local,—viz. Bidymocarpus lanuginosa, Wall., and
Gymnogramme vesiita, Hook. This Fern is surely most distinct from
A. caudatui/i, L., with w'hich both it and A. rhlzophorum, Swz. (also,
as I think, a true species), are combined by Mr. Baker in the 'Sy-
nopsis.'
Adiantum Capillus-Veneris, L., is common iu various places in the
Canton province, but always, so far as I have observed, under the or-
dinary form, not the one with deeply incised pinnules met with in
Ceylon and elsewhere.
Cheilanthes ? Chusana, Hook., was sent me from Foochow by Mr.
Medhm'st in 1859, and Messrs. Parry, Sampson, and I have met with
it in various localities in Kwangtung. I cannot help thinking that my
determination of this plant is correct, and the late Professor Mettenius
was of the same opinion. It often accoj'ds quite weU with the figure
(Spec. Fil. 2. t. 106 B), but the pinnae are frequently less approximate
and the pinnules broader. Sir William Hooker, to whom on two
several occasions I sent specimens, first said it was a broad form of C.
tenuifolia, Swz., afterwards that he considered it to be his C. subvillosa.
That, however, it cannot be, since it has neither the continuous invo-
s 2
—