21. Asplenium qiujiangense (Ching & Fu) Nakaike, Bull. Natl. Sci. Mus., Tokyo, B. B 12: 45. 1986.
俅江苍山蕨 qiu jiang cang shan jue
Ceterachopsis qiujiangensis Ching & Fu, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 22: 411. 1984; Asplenium dulongjiangense Viane; A. latibasis (Ching & K. H. Shing) Nakaike; A. latilobum Viane; Ceterachopsis latibasis Ching & K. H. Shing.
Plants up to 40 cm tall. Rhizome erect, short; apex scales brown, triangular, entire. Fronds caespitose; stipe short, 0.5-1.5(-2) cm, winged; lamina narrowly elliptic (lanceolate), (15-)20-30(-35) × 4-6(-8) cm, gradually narrowed to base, pinnatipartite, apex acute; segments (11-)14-17 pairs, alternate, perpendicular-oblique to midrib (rachis) and usually falcate, triangular to narrowly triangular, middle segments 3-5 × 1-1.5(-2) cm, margin hyaline and entire, usually with a gemma near pinna base at acroscopic margin, apex obtuse to acute. Veins obscure, nothocatadromous (anadromous base pattern but several middle pinnae with their basal vein pair catadromous). Fronds firm, gray-brown after drying, subglabrous, rachis abaxially with sparse small scales, average guard cell length 74-89 µm. Sori 3-5 pairs per segment, linear, up to 1 cm, median on acroscopic secondary veinlets in middle between costa and margin; indusia brown, linear, at maturity obscured by sporangia. Spores with reticulate perispore with large pores and faint crests, average exospore length 41-45 µm.
● On rocks in forests; 1800-2500 m. NW Yunnan.
Asplenium qiujiangense is similar to A. magnificum but has more falcate and more acute segments, with a gemma at the acroscopic margin at the pinna base. It can also be confused with A. paucivenosum, which has a larger mean exospore length (48 µm in A. paucivenosum vs. 43 µm in A. qiujiangense). In critical cases, a chromosome count will be necessary.
"Ceterachopsis chiukiangensis Ching & S. H. Fu" and "C. latiloba Ching & K. H. Shing" (in Y. L. Zhang et al., Sporae Pterid. Sin. 256. 1976) are conspecific with Asplenium quijiangense, but the two were not validly published because no Latin description or diagnosis, or reference to such, was provided (Melbourne Code, Art. 39.1).