ORCHIDACE.E 



Brit. Mus." Under this note is written, "Not B.penicillium." In 

 my note-book there are sketches of drawings in color by Lind- 

 ley of B. adenopetalum from Singapore, designated as follows : 

 "Singapore Loddiges no. 177, Oct. 10, 1842." My notes are as 

 follows: "These drawings occur on a sheet which carries two 

 Philippine species collected by Cuming. They [the plants] may 

 match Merrill's 3853 in my herbarium. They have a similar leaf! 

 I take it that these are type specimens of Lindley's Bulbophyllum 

 adenopetalum. There are no other sheets representing the species 

 in his herbarium." Lindley's sketches agree in essential details 

 with the flowers of Merrill's 3853. Lindley's description in the 

 Botanical Register (1842) Misc. 85, was prepared from speci- 

 mens imported by Messrs. Loddiges from Singapore. This de- 

 scription agrees very well with the Philippine specimens in the 

 Lindley Herbarium. 



In the Flora of British India (5 : 770) Sir J. D. Hooker placed 

 B. adenopetalum under species excluded and unknown with the 

 following brief note : "I?, adenopetalum Lindl. in Bot. Reg. 1842, 

 Misc. 85, which was supposed to be a native of Singapore, is 

 a Philippine Island species." In the sixth volume of his Flora, 

 on page 188, I find the following: "Two different Philippine 

 species in Hb. Hook, and in Hb. Lindley, both labelled by that 

 author B. adenopetalum, led me to suppose that the latter had 

 been erroneously attributed to Singapore, whence my exclusion 

 of it from the Flora." 



The type of B. adenopetalum may have come from Singapore, 

 and may be unlike the Philippine specimens later referred to 

 it. Ridley in his Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Penin- 

 sula does not help us to a solution of the problem ; he includes 

 B. adenopetalum among the species cited, but his reference to 

 distribution adds another perplexing question. It is as follows: 



[ 163] 



