certain that they are constantly present in the same species. 
If, as seems probable, they are analogous to the cirrhi of a 
Catasetum, experience warns us to distrust their importance. 
This being so, it becomes a question whether the genus 
is distinct from Lycaste, to which it undoubtedly approaches 
very nearly. The pollen-masses and gland of the two, 
although dissimilar, if À. Clowesii is compared with Lycaste 
Deppii, are nevertheless not so different when A. uniflora is 
the subject of comparison. The funnel-shaped condition of 
the middle lobe of the lip is at first sight peculiar to Anguloa, 
but it is in reality only an exaggerated condition of that 
kind of lip which we have in L. aromatica and its allies, in 
which there is a large flat appendage resting on the surface 
of the lip; the main difference consists in that appendage 
being attached to the lip at the base only, while in Anguloa 
it is united by the sides also. "This, however, is a difference 
which may be regarded as available for generic distinction. 
The main difference, however, between Anguloa and Lycaste 
consists in this; that in Zycaste the lateral sepals are placed 
edge to edge in the manner of a true Maxillaria, but in 
Anguloa they overlap each other very considerably ; this 
peculiarity causes a striking difference in the appearance of 
the flowers of the two genera, and, in fact, gives that of 
Anguloa somewhat the look of a Mormodes. 
What Anguloa squalida of Pöppig may be, I cannot say. 
I have never seen the plant, and the barbarous analyses given 
by that author preclude all hope of. coming to any conclusion: 
about it. It may, however, be safely asserted that no such 
plant exists as is represented by Mr. Póppig. 
_ Fig. 1. represents the lip of this plant cut through the 
axis, to shew its funnel-shaped structure; 2. is the pollen 
apparatus, two of the pollen-masses being half cut away. 
oft 
