`86 PROFESSOR LINDLEY'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
214. S. Wightianum, Lindl.l.c.; Wight, Ic. +. 917. (Aerides radi- 
cosum, A. Rich. in Ann. Sc. 2 ser. xv. p. 65, t. 1. fig. C. 
Courtallum, Wight (907); Nilgherries, Perrottet (75 Herb. Mus. Par.) ; 
Khasija, T. Lobb. 
Like the last, except in the circumstances already mentioned. 
In my specimen the lip has sharp lateral triangular lobes, and а 
middle one aeute, rather fleshy towards the base, but thin and 
slightly erenulate above the middle. А. Richard's plant, which 
came from the neighbourhood of Ootacamund, is certainly to be 
referred here. 
215. S. pisTICHUM ; caulibus elongatis filiformibus, foliis lanceolatis 
setaceo-acuminatis distichis, pedunculis paucifloris terminalibus et 
axillaribus, sepalis petalisque oblongis carnosissimis, labello calceolari 
lobo medio semicirculari membranaceo acuto disco didymo carnoso. 
Sikkim, 6000-8000 feet, J. D. Н. (206); Khasija, 5000-6000 feet, Id. 
(83). 
A very peculiar species, probably most nearly allied to S. acu- 
tifolium, and remarkable for its long weak stems and fleshy 
distichous leaves about an inch long. The middle lobe of the lip 
is not exterior to the two others, and it has aremarkable glandular 
convex double disk. 
216. S. ringens, Lindl. 1. с., is S. rubrum, Wight, Ic. t.1673, а good 
figure, but not the plant of the Genera and Species Orch. 
217. S. viRIDIFLORUM ; acaule, foliis (2) oblongis planis obtusis emar- 
ginatis, pedunculo laterali bivaginato paucifloro foliis multo breviore, 
sepalis petalisque unguiculatis obtusis, labello ovali nudo calcare in- 
fundibulari incurvo equali. Micropera viridiflora, Dalzell, in Hooker's 
Journal, iii. 282. 
Western India, Dalzell, in hb. Hooker. 
Very near GEceoclades pusilla, but with much shorter spikes, 
and fleshy, not membranous, flowers. This (E. pusilla, with 
flexuosa, paniculata (Sace. parvulum, m.), and perhaps tenera, are 
Saccolabia, while others are certainly Angreca; and it is probable 
that Œ. maculata is the only plant to which the generic name 
will attach. 
Note.—The Sarcanthus roseus, Wight, Ic. 1685, and filiformis, 
Ic. 1684, are certainly species of this genus, anå perhaps not 
distinct from each other. I have seen no specimens. 
Saccolabium papillosum of the same author, Ic. 1672, is not 
Acampe papillosa, nor do I recognize it: 
Ponocnurirvs, Blume. 
218. P. densiflorus, Bl. Rumphia, iv. p. 43. 
Borneo, T. Lobb. 
