4' ON A MONANDROUS CYPRIPEDIUM. 



vascular bundles is absolutely determinative of that of the organs, or 

 whether with Reichenbach, Criiger and others, we deny the exis- 

 tence of any adnation of androecium to labellum,'^' we cannot have 

 a doubt but that m the androecium of Orchidece there has 

 been a tendency to supi)ression in an organic iDOsticous (usually 

 positional anticous) sense, just the reverse of what we find in 

 Apostasia. This apphes to the gynaecium as well as to the androe- 

 cium, but conversely. I unhesitatingly include Cijin'ipediecB here, 

 and perhaps the proof of the legitimacy of my doing so is the most 

 valuable outcome of this note, since, while amonandrous condition 

 was unknown in Diandi'eae, it might have been considered quite 

 possible that, proximately speaking, these latter and the Monan- 

 drea3 did not have a common ancestor, though it must be admitted 

 that Hildebrandt's t discovery of the reciprocal effect of the 

 poUen made this position a very unsafe one. Fortunately there 

 is no need to make a great call on the imagination to gain clear 

 insight into the process of evolution of the various forms, for the 

 normal and abnormal 3-6-andi'ous states among Mouandrese, 

 together with Uropediwn, afford us the plainly defined outlines for 

 such insight. What we have to decide is, whether our monstrous 

 condition is a mere ' freak of natm*e,' or a reversion to some 

 ancestral condition. The method in the madness at once puts a 

 veto on the first presumption. As for the second, were Link's J 

 view of the monandiy of Cijpripedium the correct one, we should 

 feel almost sure that, in spite of some difficulties, this is an 

 instance of simple reversion, the Diandr^e being the descendants of 



believers, to some extent, in Darwinian principles. This has recently been 

 insisted on by Kuntze, who says, '• Diese Mutationslehre der Bliithen ist vor 

 Darwin's Epoche in Geltung gewesen ; sie wii-d auch heutzutage von alien 

 Gegnern Darwin's inconsequenterweise nicht beanstandet, trotzdem eine Lehre 

 ohne die andere nicht deukbar ist," ' Schutzmittel,' p. 63. 



* I venture to think that Criiger's citation of Isochilus — a genus in which 

 the labeUura is scarcely different from the petals — is as much unfortunate as 

 otherwise, since it may be tbat the tundeucy to pentandry is a consequence of 

 the singleness of tlie labellum, so that this may be an exception upon which no 

 conclubion can be founded. It is hero noteworthy that the labellum of 

 Arundina pentandra is comparatively small, and but slightly differentiated. 

 On the other hand, teratological cases in which the labellum is simplified 

 without numerical increase of the stamens support the Reichenbachian view. 

 In the curious Dichcea referred to by Reii-henbach (' Eot. Zeitung,' 1877, p. 38), 

 I can only se-^ an example, either of fission or of multiplication and displace- 

 ment. Criiger found tliat in Catasetum the labellum appears after the petals, 

 and nearly at the same time as the stamen, a fact which militates to a certain 

 ext.-nl against his theory. The same order of appearance of the meuib>.n-s of the 

 petaline wliorl was observed by Payer in Calanthe veratrifolia ('Organ. Comp.' 

 p. (-.65, t. U'i). 



f • Bot. Zeit.,' 1805, p. ti4.6. I Ic found that pollen of Cyjyripedium parviflorum 

 applied to Orchis mascula caused the ovary to swell and the ovules to come to 

 almost a perfect developmeut, though there was no embryo-formation ; in fact 

 this pollen, curiously enough, was more effectual on the above-named Orchis 

 than was pollen of (). Morio. Conversely, pollen of 0. mascula was similarly 

 effectual on Cypripedium Calceoliix. 



J ' Bot. Zeitung,' 1849, p. 745. He thinks that each division of the column 

 bears half an anther I He examined C. spectabiU, L., a species about which I 

 can affirm that there isnothing peculiar. 



