ON A MONANDROUS CYPRIPEDIUM. 6 



the Monandi'eae. But nowhere has Link's curious theory, so far 

 as I am aware, met with favourable reception, and wliatever refu- 

 tation it does not carry with itself is furnished by the appearance 

 in G. Sedeni of a single median anther essentially similar to either of- 

 the 7iormal ones. 



In all probability the Cypripedeous type is an earlier one than 

 the Monandreous, since there are in it more similar parts and 

 a lesser differentiation of those parts ; and this may be held in spite 

 of the undoubted fact of retrogression in both the animal and the 

 vegetable kingdom;'-^' in fact, if the subject be thought out, there 

 seems to be no other possible view than this ; for, supposing other- 

 wise for a moment, we can conceive no conditions which could 

 educe the Diandi-eous from the Monandreous type, since all the 

 causes of floral retrogression, viz., variations in entomophily or in 

 reciprocal fertility, unfavourable weather, and change of entomo- 

 phily to anemophily are out of the question here. I do not mean 

 to say that Cypripedium is the progenitor of all other Orchids, but 

 that some tyi^e, probably extinct at the x^resent time, containing 

 stamens of the two whorls and Cyx^ripedeous pollen, was the 

 starting point of the Order. On this supposition the persistence of 

 Uropedium, provided it be not a monster, and the possession by 

 Yucca Whipplei, Torr.,| of pollen like that of the CypripediecB are 

 facts of the highest importance. After a time all the stamens 

 except A% a^ and a^ would appear to have been either entirely 

 eliminated or partially so, and finally, either A^ or both a^ and 

 a^ failed to produce pollen. Now if in our monster a^ and a-^ had 

 not entirely aborted, we should have precisely the structure of 

 some orduiary Monandi-eae. I believe, then, that we see here a 

 peculiar kind of reversion, enth-ely distinct from any form of 

 what Darwin has called '* analogous variation,". and perfectly con- 

 sonant with the theories of ' Pangenesis ' and ' Physiological Units,' 

 as well as with the ' Plastidule ' theory of Haeckel adopted by 

 Strasburger. | It differs from ordinary reversion in this, that 

 whereas in the latter the teratological structure is the ancestral 

 one, in C. Sedeni the monstrous is the derived state. I was at first 

 so struck with this that I thought of proposing some term to 

 express it, such as ' Eevision of Structure,' or * Ke-presentation of 

 a Process of Evolution,' but I now think all requirements will be 

 satisfied by accentuating this as a peculiar method of reversion.^ 



We see, then, that those of the lapses from normal expression 

 of organised existence which are sufficiently constant to be appre- 

 hended by the science of to-day as orderly phenomena, maybe 

 separated into two groups. One of these shows us Reversion 



* For the animal kingdom see Darwin's ' Descent of Man.'.i., p. 205, and 

 text-books; also E. K. Lankester on Dohrn's Theory in 'Nature,' Vol. xii. 

 p. 479. In the vegetable kingdom, take Glumales for instance, and most 

 MonochlamydecB, as well as many aquatic Phanerogamia. Sixteen years ago 

 Mr. Darwin came to the conclusion that Cypripedium is an ancient type. ' Fert. 

 of Orchids,' ed. i., p. 331. 



+ See J. G. Baker in ' Gard. Chron.' 187G, pt. I., p. 196, Fig. 42. 



+ ' Studien uber Protoplasma,' p. 48. 



