471 MR J. p. M. WEALE OX TUE STRUCTUUE 



This shorteuiug of the centre process is due to very different 

 contrivances in the two plants. 



In speciosa the shortness is produced by three folds inwardly, 

 whilst in this species there are three broad and thick expansions 

 or swellings occupying a position corresponding to the folds in 

 speciosa. In Baundersiw the folds are represented by three lax 

 curvatures. 



The position of the stigmatic surfaces is also distinct in each. 

 In speciosa they project forward beyond the junction of the three 

 lobes of the labellum. In the Bedford species, whilst they are 

 free at their extremities as in speciosa^ they barely reach so far 

 forward, but in the same direction project forward and outwards. 

 In Saundersi(jG they appear to be attached to the exterior margin 

 of the lateral processes of the labellum, and are curved at their 

 extremity outwards ; but, owing to the inexactitude of the drawing, 

 according to Harvey, too much dependence cannot be placed on 

 their exact form and position. 



The posterior sepal, the anther, and the helmet of the rostellum 

 are thrown back at a more considerable angle than in speciosa^ or 

 even further than in Saiindersice, and its hood is even relatively 

 more expanded than in speciosa. This is occasioned by, or is cor- 

 relative witli, the abrupt and almost perpendicular angle which 

 the caudicle of the pollinia forms with the pollen masses. 



These last are twisted inwardly and outwardly, so that the 

 viscid disks lie in a more abrupt, but nearly corresponding, plane 

 with the stigmatic processes. While in speciosa^ after removal, the 

 caudicles become straighter, in the Bedford Bonatea they become, 

 if anything, more incurved. 



Mr. Trimen was the first to draw attention to the very peculiar 

 peg w^hich is inserted at the mouth of the nectary of speciosa. 

 This peg I had already observed in 1863, and at that time made 

 several drawings under the microscope. 



In the Bedford species this peg assumes the form of a cup- 

 like lip and is relatively much smaller, while the mouth of the 

 nectary, on the other hand, is by no means so constricted as in 

 speciosa. 



It appears to me that these parts answer the same purpose in 

 different ways in the two plants. 



In the flower of -B. speciosa the constricted mouth and the peg 

 oblige the nocturnal insects attracted by the strong scent of this 

 flower (which much resembles that of Hesperanthiis and a species 

 of Satyrittm^ both plants grownng in the vicinity) to remain 



