ORCHIDACEjE 

 ceived. The identity of D. papilio has been a puzzle, and to make 

 matters worse Kranzlin in his monograph cited only one speci- 

 men under it, a plant collected by Williams (1934), which accord- 

 ing to material in my herbarium is in no way comparable with 

 D. papilio, if D. papilio and D. Vanoverbergkii are conspecific. 

 Kranzlin had not seen the type, but his citation of specimens 

 being that of a monographer, was to my mind conclusive. His 

 description agreed with my duplicate of Williams 1934. In the 

 original description of D. papilio in the Gardeners' Chronicle, 

 D. papilio is ascribed to § Crumenata and characterized as very 

 much branched. Mr. Loher wrote in his letter of April, 1914, that 

 the original description should be emended so that the word 

 "multicaule" becomes "ramosissimum." In the original descrip- 

 tion of D. Vanoverbergkii the racemes were characterized as one- 

 flowered. From the very clear photograph reproduced in Plate 

 xiii of the Philippine Journal of Science the flowers appear 

 to be solitary. In my herbarium there is a fragment of a speci- 

 men preserved at Kew for which I am indebted to Sir David 

 Prain. Mr. Rolfe has referred this specimen to D. papilio Loher. 

 Kranzlin wrote in his monograph, "Species haud bene nota." 

 Luzon, Mindanao. 



51. Dendrobium pergracile Ames in Phil. Journ. Sci. 8 : 423. 

 A specimen in the Gray Herbarium doubtfully assigned to the 

 Philippines and identified tentatively with D. biflo?~um Sw. by 

 Reichenbach f. suggests this species. This specimen was obtained 

 by the Wilkes Expedition. D. biflorum is a near ally. 



Mindanao. 



52. Dendrobium philippinense A mes in Phil. Journ. Sci. 8 : 424. 

 In habit this species suggests D.juncifolium Schltr., a species of 

 Celebesian origin, from which it is separable by its simple label- 

 lum, which is oblong and without lobes. In the Grav Herbarium 



[ 131 ] 



