my observation, I entertain much the same opinion as before. 
It is true that the separation of epichil, mesochil, and hypochil, 
so remarkable in Stanhopea, does not occur in this plant; that 
there is an elevated table in the middle of the hollow of the lip ; 
and the column, instead of being long and winged, is short, 
fleshy, and wingless. But, on the other hand, the habit of the 
plant is so exactly that of Stanhopea, that Mr. Loddiges, from 
whom the specimen which furnished the drawing was received, 
always supposed it to be &. grandiflora. Nor does its mode of 
flowering present any the smallest difference from Stanhopea 
cirrhata, a plant from nearly the same country. That same 
species has also a wingless, short, fleshy column ; its epichil is 
equally undivided, the mesochil is scarcely distinguishable, and 
the hypochil has a pair of fleshy horns, which answer to the la- 
teral tumours in the lip of the species before us. With regard 
to the elevated table in the middle of the lip, upon which the 
_ Claim of Stanhopeastrum to be a genus must chiefly rest, I would 
point to the great tabular mesochil of 8. grandiflora and qua- 
dricornis as indicating a tendency towards the same structure. 
Upon the whole, after weighing all the evidence that is attain- 
able with regard to this question, that which I originally ha- 
zarded as a conjecture has become a conviction, and I entertain 
no doubt that we shall eventually discover proof that Stanhopea 
ecornuta 1s a mere form of some such plant as S. cirrhata.” 
Lindl. 
_ It is only justice to the learned Professor Reichenbach, jun., 
_ to say that, since the above was communicated to us, he aban- 
_ dons the views he held on the subject of the generic distinction 
of this plant, and entirely agrees with those of Dr. Lindley. 
_ Fig. 1. Column and lip. 2. Front view of the lip. 3. Front view of the 
column. 4. Pollen-masses :—all more or less magnified, 
