ORCHIDACE.E 



H. vionor- (1866); Sauv., Fl. Cub. 233 (1873); Linden, in 111. Hort. 29: 52 

 rhiza (1882); Krdnzl, in Engl. Bot. Jahrb. 16: 129 (1893); Cogn., in 



Mart. Fl. Bras. 3, pt. 4, 88 (1893); Kuntze, Rev. Gen. PI. pt. 3, 

 299 (1893); Hitchcock, Fl. Baham. in Mo. Bot. Gard. Rep. 4: 

 133 (1893); Schltr., in Bull. Herb. Boiss. 7: 539 (1899); Krdnzl, 

 Orch. Gen. et Sp. 1 : 309 (1898); Urban, in Symb. Antill. 4: 163 

 (1903); Ames, in Smith Enum. PI. Guat. pt. 7, 51 (1905) ; Cogn., 

 in Urban Symb. Antill. 6: 304 (1909). 



"O. bulbo solitari indiviso, nectarii labio 3-partito: lateralibus 

 setaceis, cornu lineari compresso germinis longitudine. 



*' Orchis setacea ? Jac5'. am. 220. 



"Satyrium. I. Brown, jam. 32 A. 



^^ Jamaica, Hispaniola. 1^." Sw. loc. cit. 



I have been unable to discover the type material of Habe- 

 naria monorrhiza. In the British INIuseum, where many of 

 Swartz's specimens are preserved, I found nothing to throw light 

 upon it. Lindley regarded H. maculosa distinct from H. monor- 

 rhiza, but, in my estimation, on insufficient evidence. Several 

 authors have regarded H. monorrhiza Br. and H. alata Hook, 

 conspecific. Reichenbach, however, indentified as H. monorrhiza 

 specimens collected in Porto Rico by Sintenis, which are iden- 

 tical with H. maculosa. He also referred H. maculosa to the 

 synonymy of ^. monorrhiza,l\iQYehy upholding the views which 

 are entertained in the present volume. Lindley laid stress on 

 the fact that Swartz described a flower which was characterized 

 by simple, undivided petals, but the extreme delicacy of the 

 anterior segment of the petals of H. monorrhiza, which renders 

 them easily breakable, he failed to take into account. Further- 

 more Swartz described the labellum of his flowers as three-parted 

 vAih the lateral division setaceous, a characterization hardly ap- 

 plicable to H. alata. There is no Jamaican Habenaria of which 



[ 230 ] 



