672 AMES. 
DENDROBIUM b&w. 
Dendrobium Lyonii Ames Orchidaceae 2 (1908) 177. 
D. acuminatum Kriinzl. in Orchis 2:73, not Rolfe. 
Dr. F. Kriinzlin in “Orchis” reduces this species. He refers it to the 
synonymy of Dendrobium acuminatum Rolfe. The colored plate which accom- 
panies his article is a fair portrait of D. Lyonii and very unlike Dendrobium 
acuminatum. As Dr. Kriinzlin has expressed the opinion that D. Lyonii is not 
specifically distinct from D. acuminatum and as he has treated it as a variety 
of this species, supplementary remarks to those I published in “Orchidaceae” seem 
called for, especially as Dr. Kriinzlin has asserted that the illustration of D. 
acuminatum in “Orchidaceae” (plate 17) is erroneous and worthless as scientific 
evidence. 
Aside from the structural differences between D. Lyonii and D. acuminatum, 
outlined in the original descriptions, there are constitutional differences, if we 
may rely on the authority of Mr. Lyon, who has collected both species and 
who has grown them in his garden at Manila. Mr. Lyon assures me that the 
elevations along the mountains of Bataan where these species grow have been 
carefully estimated and that D. acuminatum is not found below three thousand 
feet and that it is abundant at an altitude of 3,700 teet. D. Lyonii, on the other 
hand, does not occur above the third Forest Station (2,200 feet) and is found in 
a narrow zone between 1,700 and 2,000 feet. This difference in distribution is 
accentuated by the behavior of the plants under culture. At sea level in Manila 
D. acuminatum is tractable and easily brought to flower, while D. Lyonwi is with 
difficulty kept alive. 
Mr. Lyon who has studied both species in the field and in his gardens of Nag- 
tahan, Manila, writes in a letter dated January 14, 1909: “I notice of course in 
reading your diagnoses that you lay little if any stress upon vegetative features, 
but the one I have called your attention to, the presence of an awn or short hard 
tooth, at the apex of pseudobulbs of D. Lyonii, is a constant feature.” “Since the 
receipt of your letter I have gone over my entire collection, 85 plants of D. Lyonti 
and 34 of D. acuminatum and I find that this holds universally good. The apical 
tooth (rather than awn) is very persistent as well as the old flower-scape. The 
old flower-scapes decay and fall away from D. acwminatum the same season, while 
those on D. Lyonii persist certainly for three or more years.” 
Mr. Lyon asserts that D. acuminatum is practically scentless, while D. Lyonii, 
especially in the morning, and more or less all the time, is strongly and delight- 
fully fragrant. 
Dr. Krinzlin’s criticism of plate 17 of “Orchidaceae” is not justified by facts. 
The plate in question was prepared from a co-type of D. acuminatum, as is stated 
on the second page of Fase. IJ. The flowers were drawn with reasonable regard 
to accuracy and the material which furnished them was carefully preserved for 
reference. Dr. Kriinzlin assumes that the flowers were drawn smaller than they 
are in nature and that failure to designate the amount of reduction renders the 
plate worthless as scientific evidence. He bases his remarks on the measurements 
given in Mr. Rolfe’s original description of D. acuminatum. In my redescription 
on page 171 the sepals are given as “up to 3 cm long.’ In the plate the upper- 
most flower has lateral’ sepals that measure 2.7 em long. In the specimen from 
which the plate was prepared the lateral sepals are 2.3 to 3 cm in length. 
Dr. Kriinzlin fails to make allowance for foreshortening in the drawing, and, 
therefore, makes an unjust criticism. 
