MR. R. A. ROLFE ON THE APOSTASIED. 213 
ringent perianth, three perfect stamens, and other minor charac- 
ters, which were all very accurately set forth. This plant, also 
from Java, was called Neuwiedia veratrifolia. Here Blume also 
ranked the ‘group as a distinct natural order, closely allied to 
Orchidee. 
A third genus was afterwards doubtfully added to the Aposta- 
siec by Lindley. In his ‘Vegetable Kingdom'* “? Rhyn- 
chanthera, Blume ” t, is enumerated under this Order, with the 
following remark :—“ If Rhynchanthera is correctly represented 
by Blume, its 3-locular ovary will refer it here, while the structure 
of its column would keep it in Orchids. The essential character 
[2. e. of Apostasiec | is, however, framed without reference to it." 
In 1837 Endlicher f (who also retained Apostasiea as a distinct 
Order) divided Apostasia into two sections—Mesodactylus, with 
the rudimentary third stamen present, and the anthers unequal 
at the base, and Adactylus, with no vestige whatever of a third 
stamen, and the anthers equal at the base—characters which had 
been pointed out by Robert Brown. 
In 1846 Lindley described Uropedium $, remarking, “ Omnia 
Cypripedii, sed labellum planum et petala longissime caudata. 
Anthera sterilis trilobo-hastata." No mention is made of the 
structure of the ovary. 
Three years later, the plant meantime having flowered in cul- 
tivation, Brongniart published an elaborate memoir on Uropedium 
Lindenii, Lindl. ||, illustrated with a plate, showing, among other 
* Ed. 1, p. 184. 
t This genus is at present a mystery tome. Blume himself (Coll. des Orch. 
Archip. Ind. (1858) p. 125) cites * Rhynchanthera, Bl. Bydr. (1825-1826), 
fig. lxxviii,” as a synonym of Corymborchis, Thouars ; and on the following page 
he cites “Rhynchanthera paniculata, Bl. Bydr. fig. lxviii,” as a synonym of Co 
rymborchis veratrifolia, Blume ; and yet no such figure appears in either of the 
two sets of plates at Kew. Figure 73 is the highest number on tab. 15, which, 
according to Pritzel, is the number issued with the work. Neither in plates, 
text, nor index, ean I find any trace of the name or the figure in question ; and 
yet, from Lindley's remark, it is clear he had seen this figure. I can only 
surmise that some copies of the work may have been issued incomplete, yet this 
would not account for its absence in the index, and hardly in the text. With 
regard to the other question, I have examined the ovary of a species of Corymb- 
orchis, which is synonymous according to Blume, and find it one-celled with 
parietal placentation, as in the rest of the Monandre. Other authors appear to 
have found, or assumed, the same. 
1 Gen. Plant. i. p. 221. $ Orch. Linden. p. 28. 
| Ann. Se. Nat. ser. 3, vol. xiii. p. 113, t. 2. figs. 1-8. 
R2 
