certain that they are constantly present in the same species. 

 If, as seems probable, they are analooous 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 A. 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 Angidoa, 

 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 Lycaste the lateral sepals are placed 

 edge to edge in the manner of a true Maxillaria^ but in 

 Angvloa 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 Poppig 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. Poppig. 



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. 



