Gleichenia dicarpa
Content
Description
Like G. vulcanica, but the leaflets not copiously scaly (costae almost or quite glabrous when mature), the aperture of the concave lower surface of each segment of the lamina reduced to much less than half of the area enclosed by the outline of the segment as seen from below, owing to much swelling of the costal tissue;
Distribution
Asia-Tropical: New Guinea present; Philippines (Philippines present), Australasia, Malaysia present, Mindanao present, New Caledonia present
Australia, New Caledonia, in Malaysia: New Guinea, Philippines (Mindanao).
Notes
Though typical specimens of G. vulcanica in Java differ markedly from typical specimens of G. dicarpa in Australia, some specimens on mountains in Mindanao and New Guinea seem somewhat intermediate. Ecological distinctions between the two have not been studied.
Christensen, in his notes on specimens in the herbarium of Swartz at Stockholm (l.c.) stated that the type specimen of G. circinnata was identical with G. dicarpa R.Br. With his original description Swartz gave no precise locality, but in his 'Synopsis Filicum' he stated that the species was from Botany Bay, near Sydney. The only specimen labelled G. circinnata in Swartz's herbarium from that locality is certainly not G. dicarpa, though it has only two sporangia on each lamina-segment; the segments are not pouch- shaped in the manner of G. dicarpa. One can only conclude that Christensen did not make a careful examination of the specimen. However, the Botany Bay specimen is not certainly the original on which the species G. circinnata was based (furthermore, the original description in- cluded the phrase capsulis quaternis, not true of the Botany Bay specimen). I therefore refrain from reverting to Christensen's earlier identifica- tion of G. microphylla R. Br. with G. circinnata Sw.
After the publication of Christensen's note, some botanists used the name G. circinnata to replace G. dicarpa, but it seems clear that this was an error, and I therefore restore R. Brown's name.
Christensen, in his notes on specimens in the herbarium of Swartz at Stockholm (l.c.) stated that the type specimen of G. circinnata was identical with G. dicarpa R.Br. With his original description Swartz gave no precise locality, but in his 'Synopsis Filicum' he stated that the species was from Botany Bay, near Sydney. The only specimen labelled G. circinnata in Swartz's herbarium from that locality is certainly not G. dicarpa, though it has only two sporangia on each lamina-segment; the segments are not pouch- shaped in the manner of G. dicarpa. One can only conclude that Christensen did not make a careful examination of the specimen. However, the Botany Bay specimen is not certainly the original on which the species G. circinnata was based (furthermore, the original description in- cluded the phrase capsulis quaternis, not true of the Botany Bay specimen). I therefore refrain from reverting to Christensen's earlier identifica- tion of G. microphylla R. Br. with G. circinnata Sw.
After the publication of Christensen's note, some botanists used the name G. circinnata to replace G. dicarpa, but it seems clear that this was an error, and I therefore restore R. Brown's name.