204 



As regards size of flower, it will be seen that P. odor- 

 atiini is a rival of P. elatum, and, it may be added incident- 

 ally, it falls very little short of it in point of height. It 

 was a matter for regret that in the splitting up of P. patens 

 it was not possible to retain the old name for this beautiful 

 species instead of the insignificant form with which it will 

 ill future be associated. 



1. Prasophyllum nigricans, R. Br. PI. vii.A, figs. 1 to 8. 



In reference to this plant Fitzgerald writes thus: — "P. 

 nigricans is one of the forms that are ever puzzles to the 

 botanist. So close does it come to some others that no de- 

 scription can separate them without the aid of drawings or 

 specimens, and even with both these there is constant hesi- 

 tation whether the distinctions are real or constant. The 

 descriptions do not agree as given by different authors, and 

 even the specimens can hardly be said to be consistent with 

 themselves." 



Professor Ewart, referring to specimens in the National 

 Herbarium, Melbourne, writes thus: — "Most of our speci- 

 mens have been given the name /''. rufurn, etc., and sub- 

 sequently corrected. One has the following note — 'P. nigri- 

 cans may be right, but I have never seen an authentic speci- 

 men of it' (Lindley in litt., 1853). We have Milligan's 

 Oyster Cove specimen seen by Bentham." 



A letter from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, informs 

 me that the original specimen is in the British Museum. 

 "The three sj^ecimens besides the original one cited by Ben- 

 tham are presumably in the Mueller Herbarium." This is 

 unfortunately not the case, nor have I been able to trace 

 them. I am indebted to Professor Ewart for the oppor- 

 tunity of examining a specimen seen by Bentham, and also 

 to Miss Bentham, who on a recent visit to England procured 

 for me from Kew Herbarium a copy of the analytical draw- 

 ings of the tyjDe specimen (No. 5551) in the British Museum. 

 I was interested to learn that the latter institution acquired 

 the type only in 1876. Brown's original description in 

 the "Prodromus" (p. 319) is quite inadequate for identi- 

 fication, since it would include several allied fox'ms discov- 

 ered since it was written. Bentham ("Flora Aust.," vol. vi., 

 p. 343) and Fitzgerald ("Aust. Orchids") both refer to glands 

 on the tips of the lateral sepals. Such glands do not exist 

 on the type specimen, nor have I ever seen them on any 

 member of this species collected in this State. They are 

 very well marked, however, in Bentham's specimen in the 

 Melbourne National Herbarium, the plant being otherwise 

 identical with our own. An obvious error occurs in Ben- 



