2 ON A MONANDROUS CYPKIPEDIUM. 



somewhat larger than nature ; beside it I have figured for com- 

 parison on the same scale the ordinary shield-hearing column, and 

 at Fig. 4 the monstrous arrangement is shown in a larger and 

 more convenient way. The posterior division of the column is 

 here comparatively narrow, short, and truncated at the top, and 

 it bears at the upper part of its inner (anterior) face a single anther ; 

 at the point of divergence of the two divisions on neither side is 

 there the least trace of the usual Cijpripedimn anther. The flower 

 is, therefore, monandi'ous in the strictest sense of the word. The 

 anterior or stigmatic branch of the ordinary column makes a con- 

 siderable angle w^ith the common base, and the tw^o lobes of 

 of the stigma, as well as the crowning third lobe — the rostellum of 

 the Monandreae — are placed transversely and are directed forwards. 

 In the monster, on the contrary, the thu-d lobe is supj)ressed, and 

 the two longitudinally-placed stigmatic lobes are borne on a 

 branch which is almost continuous with the common base, so that 

 they look upwards as well as outwards (Figs. 5 and 6). Finally, 

 as might with much safety be assumed, from the state of the 

 stigma, the ovary is two- celled. -•' The modified flowers have, 

 therefore, a two-wdiorled four-membered j)erianth, a monandrous 

 androecium and a dimerous gynrecium. It is manifest that interest 

 centres on the second of these peculiarities, and that two questions 

 will be uppermost in the mind of every morphologist : first, what is 

 the position of the single stamen ? and secondly, what phylogenetic 

 deductions, if any, are to be drawn from the anomaly ? These 

 questions I shall endeavour to answer as satisfactorily as possible. 



A glance at the diagram (Fig. 7), the explanation of which is 

 obvious, will suffice to show that the fibro -vascular bundles of the 

 column are three in number, of which one, namely, that supplying 

 the anther-bearing arm, is median, and evidently belongs to the outer 

 whorl, while the other two proceed each towards a stigmatic lobe ; 

 but there is no trace of bundles corresponding in position to the 

 letters a*, a'^, a^,! and r.of the diagram. There is, therefore, no 

 room for doubtmg that the androecium of our monster is similar, 

 allowance made for suppression, to that of ordinary Monandrese. 

 The expectation of finding, m accordance with this interesting 

 fact, cellular modifications associated with the morphological ones, 

 was, however, nullified in every way, the anther having the many- 

 layered endothccium and fully-evolved pollen-grains entangled in 

 glutinous matter which mark the genus. 



It will here be convenient to mention the published deviations 

 fi'om the usual structure of Ci/jiripediuni. Asa Gray I has seen a 



* A tendency to suppression of one of the placentas is figured by Cramer 

 (Bil.lungsabweichung.-n.t. xiv. Fig. 2) in an abnormal flower of Ojyhrys arachnites, 

 ami in Asa Gray's specimen of Cijpripedium candidiim ('Silliman's Journal,' 1866, 

 p. 195), there were only two placentas. 



t I may hero state that, in common with everybody who has worked at 

 Orchid Morphology, I have nover seen in this genus a trace of the bundle cor- 

 responding in position to the a^ of the diagrams. 



X L.c. p. 1U5. Dr. Iteichenbach showed inc a similar monster some 

 months ago. 



