70 



THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



Cephalanthera. 

 " Ovar. sessile ; non contortum. 

 Col. erecto connivens. Lah. inerme ; 

 amplexans interruptum : Hypo-^hilium 

 dorso gibbum ; Epichilium apice re- 

 curvvim. Gynost. longnm ; rectum. 

 Gyniz. trans verso-oblongus, prominens. 

 Rost. nullum. Anth. marginalis ; ellip- 

 tico-subrotunda ; ima tantum parte 

 dor so Gynizi incumbens, csetero aperte 

 eum superans : loculi connective ipsis 

 crassiori antice adnati. Poll, massae 

 lineares ; demum dorso Gynizi per 

 imam partem adhaerescentes : granula 

 simplicia." 



Epipactis. 

 " Ovar. pedicellatum ; non contor- 

 tum. Cal. patens ; laciniis subcon- 

 formibus. Lah. inerme ; deorsum pa- 

 tentiusculum nee amplexans ; interrup- 

 tum ; Hypochilium concavo - gibbum ; 

 Epichilium introrsum ad basim bi- 

 gibbum. (rynos^.brevissimum; ratione 

 ovarii ad posteriora declinans. Gyniz. 

 subquadratus, deorsum prominens. 

 Rost. apiculare, brevissimum obtusum. 

 Ayith. marginalis ; postica ; cordata 

 obtuse acuminata. Poll, massae ob- 

 longo-ovatas ; prope apicem adglutin- 

 ales : granula veluti triquadriglobu- 

 lata." 



H. G. Eeiclienbach (Icones, xiv. 1851) differentiates them as 

 follows : — 



"Labellum medio constrictum, arti- 

 culatum, cum gynostemio rectangulum. 

 Gynostemium breve, anthera obtusa 

 triangula erecta, glandula rotunda " 

 (p. 139). 



Plant, iii. 4S5, 1883) give the 



" Sepala patentia. Labellum supra 

 basin latam concavam constrictum. 

 Caulis foliatus, floribus capsulisque 

 nutantibus v. pendulis." 



" Labelli medio constrieti, subarti- 

 culati pars inferior cum gynostemio 

 parallela basin versiis cum eodem 

 connata. Gynostemium semiteres, 

 gracili, anthera oblonga, glandule 

 nullfe" (p. 133). 



Bentham and Hooker (Gen. 

 following : — 



" Sepala conniventia. Labellum 

 supra basin concavam v. breviter sac- 

 cato-calcaratam constrictum. Columna 

 longiuscula. Caulis foliatus, floribus 

 capsulisque erectis.' 



Wettstein first criticizes Eichard's diagnosis, suggesting that anj 

 classification of orchids, based on European species onl}^ must be 

 faulty. He asserts that the length of the fiower-stalk, and the 

 consequent attitude of the flowers, are not of generic value, and that 

 the characters of the rostellum, stigma, and anther are inconstant, 

 the stigma in CejyhalanfJu'ra being sometimes round (C. rubra), 

 sometimes transversely elliptical (C. grandiUora), or nearly quad- 

 rangular (C. cvcullafa), whilst in Epipacfis it is quadrangular 

 {E. latifolia) or rounded {E. palustris). Further, the anther in 

 Ce2')lialanthera is round (C. ruhra) or slightly cordate {G. cucullata), 

 in Epipacfis sometimes the former (E. palustris), but as a rule the 

 latter. The difference in the pollen-grains he dismisses as un- 

 important, for in Ceplialantliera they are also grouped in tetrads, and 

 merely become free somewhat earlier than in Epipactis. He there- 

 fore claims that the only remaining difference is that the petals and 

 sepals are connivent in Cephalanthera and spreading in Epipactis — 

 a character manifestly not of generic value. 



We may at once admit that the presence or absence of a flower- 

 stalk, and the slight differences in the shape of the anther, and even 

 of the stigma, are characters of relatively small value. The criticism 

 of the stigma-characters is chiefly founded on the "nearly quad- 



