A study of the published floral diagrams of Neuwwiedia 
(Pfitzer, 1889) reveals that an early step in the suppres- 
sion of the three stamens of the posterior half of the 
flower (A2, a8 and A8) had already started here; hence 
the functional stamens were the median one of the outer 
whorl (A1) and the lateral stamens of the inner whorl 
(al and a2). Such flowers specialized further along two 
distinct lines: (1) suppression of the median stamen of 
the outer whorl (A 1), which tendency gave rise to forms 
like the diandrous orchids, and (2) suppression of the lat- 
eral stamens of the inner whorl (al and a2) which ten- 
dency resulted in monandrous orchids. Such an inter- 
pretation is in conformity with the stand taken by Rolfe 
(1909-12). (These aspects are fully discussed in my 
paper, ‘‘Embryological studies in the Orchidaceae, Part 
II,’’ which is under publication). 
CarPEL. According to the classical view, the orchid 
ovary is unilocular and tricarpellary; the ovules are mar- 
ginal, the margins of the adjacent carpels having fused 
to such an extent as to obliterate the double nature of 
the ovule-bearing vascular traces. ‘The median trace of 
each carpel supplies the respective stigma. 
The only opposition to the above-mentioned view is 
that advanced by Saunders (1928, 1987). She contends 
that each of the main vascular traces of the ovary repre- 
sents a carpel; that the main traces underlying the outer 
whorl of perianth are to be considered as solid sterile car- 
pels bearing stigmas and that the main traces underlying 
the inner whorl of perianth members are to be considered 
as representing semi-solid carpels where placentae have 
approached the median trace of the carpel. 
There is absolutely no anatomical evidence to favor 
Saunders’ views. The inconsistencies and irrelevancies 
of the theory of ‘‘Carpel Polymorphism’’ have been 
[ 91 ] 
