ORCHIDACE.E 



botanical thought critical groups which have been neglected 

 until they present hopeless confusion to one who attempts to 

 understand them. His severe criticism of the Kranzlin mono- 

 graph, however, which opens the way to him for a new arrange- 

 ment of the species, although justified, does not take into account 

 the task which Kranzlin had to perform, and overlooks the sig- 

 nificant truth that Kranzlin in blazing the way for a comprehen- 

 sive treatment of the genus Dendrobium was overwhelmed by 

 the difficulties he encountered in laying the foundations for sub- 

 sequent monographers. At the same time Schlechter, in the pre- 

 sentation of his views relative to Dendrobium, is not beyond 

 criticism. In his Die Orchidaceen von Deutsch-Neu-Guinea, in 

 spite of his explanation of the forty-one sections into which he 

 proposes to distribute the species of Dendrobium (thirty of which 

 are accounted for by the New Guinea flora), he treats of 256 

 species, the greater part new to science, without a key to clarify 

 them. It is true that his sections indicate the systematic affini- 

 ties of his species, but even they fail to give the assistance they 

 should, as in his diagnoses, if such they may be called, he does 

 not make his points so clear that one not a student of the group 

 can understand them and apply them to species which are not 

 natives of New Guinea, or which are not cited in the work. 



Subgenus ATHECEBIUM. 



1. § Desmotrichum. This group is characterized by a marked 

 tendency to branch. The leaves, one at the summit of each pseudo- 

 bulb, are not articulated with a sheath. The pseudobulbs termi- 

 nate the branches. 



* 1. D. chrysographatum Ames. 



* 2. D. Eurorum Ames. 



* 3. D. interjectum Ames. 



[ 108 ] 



