ORCHIDACE.E 



In the United States National Herbarium there is a specimen 

 from Loher's collection bearing this number which is conspe- 

 cific with D. crumenatum Sw. Kranzlin also cites Cuming 2045 

 under D. cumulatum, but Cuming's 2045 in the British Museum 

 is conspecific with D. crumenatum Sw. Under D. crumenatum 

 Kranzlin cites this Cuming number again. The question arises, 

 was Cuming's 2045 a mixture of D. crumenatum and D. cumu- 

 latum ? Even so, it is almost beyond belief that Loher's 491 was 

 also a mixture of these two very dissimilar species. Such like- 

 lihood of confusion is scarcely borne out by the evidence that 

 D. cumulatum, if a Philippine species at all, must be extremely 

 rare. In the Gray Herbarium there is a specimen of jD. cumula- 

 tum Lindl. from the Sikkim-Himalayan region, distributed by 

 King and Pantling, which is quite distinct from any Philippine 

 species of which I have any knowledge. Kranzlin's citation of 

 specimens, which I regard as wholly incorrect, is the only evidence 

 of a Philippine origin for D. cumulatum which I have been able to 

 detect. I have included D. cumulatum in this list simply for the 

 purpose of correcting what appears to be an extraordinary error 

 in citation of specimens in Kranzlin's Dendrobiinse (Engler's Das 

 Pflanzenreich). It is very unlikely that D. cumulatum Lindl. is a 

 native of the Philippines. 



26. Dendrobium Dearei Reichb.f. in Gard. Chron. (1882) 2 : 

 361. 



MlNDORO, DlNAGAT. 



27. Dendrobium distichum Reichb.f in Linnasa 41: 39. Schis- 

 moceras disticha Presl Rel. Haenk. 1 : 96, t. 13. D. thysanopho- 

 rum Schltr. is a nearly allied species. In habit I find it difficult 

 to distinguish between them. My material of D. thysanophorum 

 is flowerless. Petiver (Gazophylacium, pi. 103, fig. 16) figured a 



[ m ] 



