Charles Darwin was very much perplexed by the gen- 
era Catasetum, Monachanthus and Myanthus, because he 
was led to believe, mistakenly, that all three had been 
found on a single plant. Indeed down to this day, al- 
though R. Allen Rolfe explained the reason for Darwin’s 
error (cf. Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot. 27 (1891) 206-225), we 
find an occasional recrudescence of this extraordinary be- 
lief. (ef. explanation of the illustration opposite the plate 
on p. 166.) 
Notwithstanding the failure of resupination or torsion 
to designate genera in the Catasetum alliance, resupina- 
tion is still used to differentiate between certain subtribes 
in the Neottiineae, the outstanding example being found 
in the Cranichideae which are separated from the Spiran- 
theae and Physureae by having the labellum uppermost, 
that is the labellum is the posterior segment of the peri- 
anth. In this extremely puzzling aggregation there has 
been marked disagreement regarding the final resting- 
place of certain genera; Baskervillea, for example, having 
been referred to the Spirantheae in one system and to 
the Cranichideae in another. And Manniella, placed by 
Pfitzer in the Cranichideae, the subtribe with non-resu- 
pinate flowers, was made the type-genus of a new sub- 
tribe by Schlechter, distinguishable in part by the flowers 
being resupinate. In the Orchid Review 380 (1922) 8, 
Colonel M. J. Godfery directed attention to Georges 
Rouy’s dependence on the ovaries in establishing sub- 
tribal differences between the Spirantheae and Physur- 
eae, the former having twisted ovaries, the latter un- 
twisted ovaries (Flore de France 18 (1912) 209-210). 
Godfery argued that twisted and straight ovaries may 
occur in the same raceme of Goodyera repens, a member 
of the Physureae, and that therefore twisting of the ovary 
is of no value as a generic, still less as a subtribal charac- 
ter. A careful examination of the genera composing the 
[ 165 | 
