ORCHIDACEyE 



tance than those of the four last sections here adopted " (namely, 

 Plectoglossa, Diphylax, Diphyla and Dithrix). 



Almost of the same opinion are King and Pantling, who in 

 the Orchids of the Sikkim- Himalaya give the following note in 

 which they refer to Habenaria as — 



"A genus which should certainly be reduced to the older 

 Linnsean genus Herminium were it not for the upsetting of 

 synonymy which this would involve. The older genus consists 

 of about 13 species. Habenaria contains about 400! Moreover 

 the distinctions between Habenaria and Orchis are also mostly 

 arbitrary; and were mere consistency the only object, Orchis 

 (a genus of Tournefort) would swallow up not only Herminium 

 and Habenaria, but also Diplomeris and Hemipilia,'" 



Cogniaux has supported in his work on the orchids of Brazil^ 

 the view taken by Bentham, as is indicated by the very full 

 synonymy which he gives under Habenaria, and is at variance 

 with the system adopted by Pfitzer in Engler and Prantl's 

 Hie naturlichen Pflanzenfamilien. Pfitzer, not only admits such 

 genera as Cceloglossum, Gymnadenia, Platanthera and Peru- 

 laria, but separates these from Habenaria, and places them in a 

 separate section, the reason for the division depending mainly 

 on the development of the stigmas. 



We might expect to find in Lindley's work a rational inter- 

 pretation of the HabenaricEe, as his prolonged study of the 

 orchid family must have placed him on intimate terms with a 

 large number of species. According to the views expressed by 

 him in his Genera and Species of Orchidaceous Plants he was 

 of the opinion that Habenaria as generally understood included 

 several clearly marked genera. We find him arguing in a circle, 

 however, and must conclude that he was by no means confident 



1 In Martii Fl. Bras. 



[7 ] 



