Go to National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa
Volume 8, 1875
This text is also available in PDF
(113 KB) Opens in new window
– 330 –

Art. XLI.—Description of a new species of Hymenophyllum.

[Read before the Auckland Institute, 11th October, 1875.]

In my account of the Botany of the Titirangi District, published in the fifth volume of the “Transactions,” I have briefly alluded to a Hymenophyllum, as being distinct from any previously described form. Since then I have gathered the same plant in several widely separated localities, in some of which it is by no means uncommon; and there can be little doubt that it will ultimately be found to be generally distributed throughout the colony. My view of its specific distinctness has been confirmed by Mr. Baker, and a full description is given by him in the new edition of the “Synopsis Filicum;” but as this work is not generally accessible here, I have drawn up the following brief diagnosis, including a few points of difference not mentioned in the “Synopsis.”

Hymenophyllum cheesemani, Baker.

Minute, forming tufts or cushions on the branches of trees, or creeping among Mosses and Hepaticæ. Rhizome branched, wide-creeping, smooth and wiry. Stipes, 2–3 lines long, filiform. Fronds one-sixth to three-fourths of an inch long, simple, forked, or irregularly digitately divided; quite glabrous; texture, firm; segments, about one line broad, linear oblong or ligulate, obtuse, with only a single central costa in each; margins not thickened, strongly ciliate-toothed. Sori, one to three to a frond, terminal on the segments; involucre nearly free, orbicular, of a much thicker and more compact substance than the frond, divided almost to the base; valves convex, quite entire; receptacle generally included.

Habitat.—Thames Goldfields, Whangarei, Hunua and Titirangi, Great Barrier Island. Not seen below 500 feet. I am indebted to Mr. Kirk for my knowledge of the Great Barrier locality.

Apparently a very distinct species. Its nearest ally in New Zealand is undoubtedly H. minimum, which I am glad to find Mr. Baker now considers to be distinct from H. tunbridgense. From both these plants it can readily be distinguished by its peculiar habit, less divided, often quite simple fronds, and by the position and form of the involucre. The Australian H. pumilum,

– 331 –

and H. moorei, from Lord Howe's Island, are closely related species. Trichomanes armstrongii, from the Canterbury Alps, has precisely the same habit, and but for the thickened margins of the frond, could hardly be distinguished in the barren state. It has, however, the true sori of a Trichomanes, and when seen in fructification, it is impossible to confound the two plants.