a eT 
iat 
PREFACE. xxiii 
considering the thorough exposition of the true mode by 
Brown, unphilosophical. And according to the author's 
expressions how can the process be effected in those 
which have no gland whatever, the fact of the rare 
occurrence of fecundation in those genera which 
present great difficulties to its being effected, is at 
once an argument in favor of the gland, being a 
mere organ for favoring the removal of the pollinia. 
No great stress is ever to be laid on solitary charac- 
ters, hence both Lindley and Bauer are wrong in 
placing so much reliance on the perforation of the 
pouches of Ophrys: the existence of which Mr. Brown 
appears to deny, additional proofs of fecundation 
occurring in the usual way have presented themselves 
to me in two genera in which from the imperfection 
of the lower wall of the clinandrium the masses are 
absolutely in contact with the stigma. In theseas 
might be expected, this process was effectual and nearly 
universal. 
their views as to the origin of the gland, 
and its nature, in addition to the proofs adduced by 
Brown of its being a portion of the stigma. I ma 
say, that when no rostellum is formed, there is no 
gland. This is completely proved by the metamor- 
phosis or rather deformity of a haue Diei dee 
which there is not a trace either of a rostellum- o: a 
gland. But to insure fecundation a curious change 
of place occurred in the stigma, which instead of 
occupying the anticous face of the columna, had be- 
come posticous, occupying in fact the situation of the 
clinandrium. 
