multiflora and A. longifolia, which also expressed my own 
feelings. While he does not discuss the problem in detail and 
limits himself to question marks, it is undoubtedly due to his 
most sensible wish to keep within British India and not spread 
out to China or Africa. We find in this field, as in the general field 
of taxonomic work in our area, that Hooker’s big work marks 
the end of an era, for the following 80 years taxonomical works 
on the flora of the Asiatic mainland have been very meager both 
in size and in quality. 
With this perspective in mind we may now turn to look at the 
actual plant material connected with Thalia Maravara and 
Aerides rigida. The main question is: are there any differences 
between the Himalayan plants called Aerides rigida, the 
Chinese plants called Vanda multiflora, and the Tenasserim 
plants called Vanda longifolia? 
Needless to say, more detail on the identity of Vanda multi- 
flora is necessary in addition to its early history already sum- 
marized above. There is no reason to doubt that the type- 
specimen came from China, be it from Mr. Reeves or some other 
traveller around 1820 or earlier, and unless some misplaced 
specimens are found, we have to declare Lindley’s figure in 
‘‘Collectanea Botanica’ the holotype. Among the characteris- 
tics in the rather long original description we find one very 
essential distinguishing character of the lip: ‘‘sacco intus glabro 
inappendiculato’’. Several years later, in Paxton’s Flower Gar- 
den (1851: 21) Lindley maintains that the plants occur both in 
China and Nepal, but adds a new description of the lip, “basi 
linea media pilosa in calcar decurrente aucto’’. 
This chaotic changing becomes finally clarified in Lindley’s 
treatment of Acampe (Fol. Orch. Acampe, 1853) when he states 
that A. multiflora has its occurrence limited to China (Reeves, 
Champion) while the description of the lip reads, ‘‘Labello ovato 
acutiusculo, calcare vacuo’’ which 1s a mere rewording of the 
original description. Lindley adds the following explanation: *‘I 
seem to have formerly confused with it specimens of A. /ongi- 
folia, which differs from among other things in having a hairy 
raised line inside the sack of the lip’’. From this we learn that 
Lindley ended up by maintaining that Buchanan’s plant from 
Nepal is not Acampe multiflora, and that in his opinion the lack 
of hairs and calli, ‘‘calcare vacuo’’, is the most important distin- 
guishing character of the Chinese plant. The Nepalese plant, 
however, has disappeared. 
57 
