452 OECHIDACEARUM GENERA ET SPECIES. 



the tribes or genera the work might have been done better and in 

 reasonable time. 



Except for new species and a few trifling alterations in arrange- 

 ment, there is little of novelty to call for remark in the fascicles 

 now mider review. They are almost exclusively devoted to the 

 genus Hahenaria, which the author has recently monographed, and 

 which would presumably not need much revision. The sections pro- 

 posed are, with small differences, those under which Dr. Kraenzlin 

 arranged the species in Engler's Jahrbiich, xvi. (1892). The thirty- 

 four sections are reduced to thirty-two by the union of RepUcatm (4) 

 and Bilabrella (6), and of SeticaiidcB (B2) and StenochilcB [S3) ', the 

 section Acuifera, also disappears, while Hooker's Plectoylossa is 

 adopted from the Flora of British India for the Indian species 

 H. Perottetiana. The section CeratopetalcB might also have been 

 xxnitedi \Yith. EeplicatcB ; the diagnosis of each is exactly the same, 

 and they contain identical species. For instance, Haheyiaria Wei- 

 ivitschii [CeratopetalcB) and H. cataphysema [PieplicatcB) of Eeichen- 

 bacli fil. are indistinguishable. The sections as a whole seem too 

 artificial, and other instances of wide separation of nearly allied 

 plants might be mentioned. Thus the South African H. foliosa 

 and the Angolan epipactidea, both of Eeichenbach fil., are hardly 

 specifically distinct, the tropical plant being smaller, with laxer 

 habit, less blunt leaves, and smaller bracts ; the floral structure is 

 identical, except for the slightly narrower, more oblong lateral 

 petals of H. epipactidea. But while the latter comes in Section 20 

 [Chlorinm), H. foliosa is found in SeticaudcB, which is No. 31 in the 

 clavis, but 30 in the text, from having changed places with 

 Odontopetalm. It is matter for regret that so many of the Brazilian 

 species published by Sr. Barbosa Kodrigues in his Gen. & Sp. 

 Orch. Nov. should, owing to absence of material and insufficient 

 diagnosis, have to be considered apocryphal. 



Besides the completion of Hahenaria, the last fascicle includes 

 the small Indian genus Dlplomeris, Cynosorchis, Barlcea (5. calcarata 

 Bchb. f.), and part of Peristylus. 



As the date 1897 is printed on the cover of each part, and as 

 some confusion has arisen in the issue of parts 7 and 8, future 

 systematists will be glad to find a record of the dates on which the 

 Department of Botany received each fascicle ; these dates probably 

 fairly coincide with the exact date of issue : — 



Fascicle 1, received Aug. 24, 1897. 



2, ,, Sept. 15, 1897. 



3, „ Nov. 9, 1897. 



4, „ Dec. 14, 1897. 



5, „ Jan. 19, 1898. 



6, „ April 19, 1898. 



,, 8 (issued in error as 7), received June 28, 1898. 

 „ 7 ( „ „ 8), „ July 12, 1898. 



A. B. Rendle. 



