capsules 2.7—4.8 mm. long; pedicels 2.4-4 mm. long. 
Professor Fernald, in the explanation of his plate that 
illustrates the differences he would emphasize, refers to 
the capsules of the Eurasian Malaxis as having a project- 
ing, shriveled perianth. He contrasts these with capsules 
from a Maine plant which have a reflexed perianth. At 
first glance one would regard the difference between the 
vestiges of the perianth as a substantial fruit-character, 
but the ‘‘projecting shriveled perianth’’ is due to the non- 
resupinate flowers which had the labellum directed away 
from the ovary. The ‘‘reflexed perianth’’ is simply the 
result of resupination, the labellum in this case having 
rested on the top of the ovary. This is, I think, clearly 
shown by the flowers in the plate on p. 177. So this dif- 
ference stands or falls on the value attributed to resupi- 
nation as a specific difference. Professor Fernald refers 
to the pedicels of the capsules in the Eurasian plants as 
being twisted and contrasts them with the pedicels of the 
American plants which he describes as being “‘straight’’. 
This difference is desperately difficult to accept because 
the pedicels are twisted in both the Eurasian and Amer- 
ican representatives of Malaxis monophyllos; the only 
difference in the twist of the pedicels being that those of 
the American plants are twisted through 180 degrees and 
those of the Kurasian plants are twisted through 860 de- 
grees, it being the additional twist which has returned 
the labellum to its primitive or non-resupinate position. 
In both the Eurasian and American representatives of 
Malaxis monophyllos a twisted pedicel is quite normal. 
The direction of the twisting, however, varies from flow- 
er to flower in the same raceme, and while some pedicels 
turn in a clockwise direction, others turn in a counter- 
clockwise direction. This peculiarity is clearly shown in 
the illustration of two capsules borne by a Vermont 
plant. Either Professor Fernald overlooked the twisted 
[1738 | 
