given his own alternative interpretations of the very ex- 
amples which were previously interpreted as evidencing 
the old hypothesis. He also summarizes other instances 
‘‘which decidedly seem to tend towards disapproving the 
accepted theory and to support that advanced by 
Criiger.’’ In addition to these, he presents some of his 
own original observations on some abnormal flowers of 
Cypripedium. All of these combine to support the opinion 
that there is not even a single instance to support the 
view of the compound nature of the labellum. 
As can be seen, until now the Brownian and Darwin- 
ian concept of the orchid labellum has largely been 
checked only with teratological flowers. Excepting the 
study of Masters (1887), which deals in part with the 
vascular anatomy of normal flowers, I am not aware of 
other subsequent contributions dealing with the anatom- 
ical studies of normal orchid flowers. 
The present anatomical study of 40 species of orchid 
flowers belonging to 24 genera also does not show any 
evidence in support of the compound theory of the la- 
bellum. The traces representing the lateral stamens of 
the outer whorl, whenever present, are distinctly identi- 
fiable inthe gynostemium. Their independent origin and 
course is especially clear in forms like Hu/ophia, where 
no kind of secondary fusion nor complication accompanies 
their expression. Even in those instances where adnation 
results in a compound staminal supply as al+ A2 and 
a2+A38, the traces without an exception pass into the 
gynostemium but not into the labellum. Furthermore, 
the labellum is almost always provided with separate mar- 
ginal traces, given out by the veins belonging to the ad- 
jacent perianth members. As has already been stated in 
an earlier part of this text, the labellum receives typically 
a median and two marginal traces and hence is in no way 
different anatomically from other perianth members. 
[ 87 ] 
