100 
with the one here figured, were referred by him to Myanthus, on 
account of the difference in their structure from the original Cata- 
setum macrocarpum, Rich. Lindley afterwards pointed out his 
mistake, when an inflorescence combining two of his supposed 
genera was sent to him by the Duke of Devonshire (Bot. Reg., t. 
1947 A, text 1951*), but without understanding the significance of 
the phenomenon, and, while remarking that the supposed genera 
Myanthus and Monachanthus must be restored to Catasetum, he 
added : “ But which of the species have their masks on, an which 
The question was the subject of a noteworthy pape ie Darwin, 
publebed in 1862 (Journ. Linn. Soc., vi. pp. 151-157), entitled 
* On the Three remarkable Sexual Forms of Oeiaithain tridentatum, 
” Tn this paper 
Darwin sought to show that Catasetum Sees Hook., pro- 
female and hermaphrodite states of the same species. A wood-cut of 
each was given 
Darwin established the fact that the sportive character of Cata- 
setum, or the curious habit of its species of sud lenly producing 
owers of a totally different kind (usually termed “ monsters ”’) on 
the same plant was simply an abnormal combination of different 
sexual forms in the same individual, but he failed to discover that 
the name Monachanthus viridis, Lindl., had been Ss so as to 
include more than one species of Catasetum, In fact he misread 
some remarks of Schomburgk, who had already mat that Mona- 
chanthus alone bore seeds, and had expressed the opinion that “ the 
genera Monachanthus, Myanthus and Catasetum form but one 
genus” (Trans. Linn. Soc., xvii. p. 551), The consequence of this 
was that Darwin, whilst showing satisfactorily that Catasetum was 
current for many years, until, after a re-examination of all the 
records, aided by some fresh materials, the writer was enabled to 
clear the matter up in a paper entitled “ On the Sexual Forms of 
Catasetum, wie os reference to the researches of Darwin and 
others” (Journ. Linn, Soe., xxvii. pp. 206-225, t. 8). 
In this ‘aia it was shown that the females of three different 
Lindl., the original one, apparently the female of C. cernuum, 
Reichb. f. (Myanthus ee ig. Lindl.), one figured in the Botanical 
Register (t. 1752), of which C. —— Rich. (C. tridentatum 
Hook.) i is the male, an nd M. viridis, Schomb., the male of C. 
barbatum, Lindl. (M. ‘yanthus as bates Lindl.), Thus Catasetum 
tridentatum and Myanthus barbatus were both males, very distinct 
from each other, though a general resemblance of the females to 
each other had led to all being confused under a single species. 
An examination of all the materials available led ee the estab- 
= of four distinct sections of the genus, as follo 
tasetum, Holfe.—Lip superior in both sexes, generally 
more or lead galeate in the male, always so (as far as known) in the 
