199 



begins the tugging on the caudicle which eventually results 

 in the liberation of the pollen-masses from the anther-case 

 — a process fully described later on in this paper (vide fer- 

 tilization of P. nigricans). 



Another point which may be emphasized while dealing 

 with the rostellum is that its height is lessened after the 

 removal of the pollen-masses owing to the loss of the 

 caudicle-disc which fits into its apex. 



"Anther-point recurved" is another exjDression fre- 

 quently met with in descriptions of members of this genus. 

 While admitting that this condition may occasionally be of 

 some slight diagnostic importance, it sometimes involves a 

 fallacy w-hicli should be borne in mind. The function of 

 the anther-point, so far as I have been able to ascertain 

 it, is to keep the disc moist, to protect it from the drying 

 influence of the air. When the rostellum "incurves" the 

 disc is drawn away from close contact with the hitherto hori- 

 zontal anther-point, which then imdergoes the process of 

 drying and frequently becomes "recurved." This at any 

 rate is the progress of events in some species which I have 

 observed.. 



In the immature flower the caudicle in all our Praso- 

 phylla lies closely and snugly between the back of the ros- 

 tellum and the front of the pollinia, being usually attached 

 from about the middle of the masses to their conjoined apices. 

 This situation of the caudicle has an important bearing upon 

 the process of fertilization. Each pollen mass shows evi- 

 dence of longitudinal bilobing. 



The shape of the lateral appendages of the column was 

 utilized by Robert Brown to form his two fundamental divi- 

 sions, viz. : — 



I. "Columnas laciniae laterales apice integrae," and 



II. "Columnse laciniae laterales [apice] bifidae." 



There can be no question that the morphological differ- 

 ences between lateral appendages are of great diagnostic im- 

 portance, and now that plants with bifid tips to their lateral 

 appendages have so greatly increased in number, I think 

 that Brown's comprehensive primary subdivision of Conti- 

 nental Prasophylla might be reverted to with advantage. So 

 far as this State is concerned, nine out of our fourteen species 

 show comparatively unimportant variations in the lateral 

 appendages — the other five are distinctive. 



Only two — P. nigricanH and P. Tepperi — fall under 

 Brown's second group ("[apice] bifidae") ; all the rest have un- 

 divided tips, but are provided with a posterior basal lobe of 

 varying size and shape, the notch between the two lobes being 



