﻿To the terminal inflorescence we may add the leafy stems and 

 the coriaceous persistent leaves which in Acrolophia appear to offer 

 natural marks of distinction from Eulophia. We hesitate the less, 

 too, in accepting this genus because, if it be rejected, we should be 

 ; 



both An - . . ' i. ii fact, nearly all those genera 



and Cymbidieas, of some of which the distinctions are very slight ; and 

 should thus be insensibly drawn towards the danger (against which 

 Hooker has sounded a note of warning) of placing all orchids into 

 a handful of genera of immense and unwieldy size. In sack large 

 and closely similar groups as those of which we are treating it 

 becomes almost a necessity, and is certainly an advantage, to give 

 more importance to vegetative characters than has hitherto been 



It may be urged against us that we have ourselves given up the 

 extensive genus Lissochilus. But we are confident that those who 

 hereafter may have the opportunity of seeing numerous living species 

 of that genus and Eulophia will concur with us that it is unavoid- 

 able ; for, distinct as may appear the extreme forms of the two 

 genera, there are yet so many intermediate forms that it is im- 

 possible to mark any limits. In a former number of this series 

 the case of Eulophia aqualis (Lindley) Bolus, has already been 

 mentioned. This species varies with broad and narrow petals. If 

 an objector should desire to maintain the genus Lissochilus he would 

 be compelled to place the broad-petalled form in Lissochilus and the 

 narrow-petalled form in Eulophia. The presence or absence of a 

 spur to the lip is a character subject to such gradation as to be of 

 no value in either of these subtribes (see authorities quoted in Bolus, 

 On-h. Cape Peninsula, p. 105). We have already both forms in 

 Acrolophia, where A. vstulata is spurless, whereas all the other 

 species are spurred. 



Since Prof. Pfitzer has not given any details as to the species of 

 Acrolophia we have looked through the species of Lulophia, an. I 

 subjoin a synoptical table showing the manner into which we think 

 the eight species which appear to belong to it should be arranged. 



Respecting the geographical distribution of the genus we may 

 observe that, with a single exception, the species all inhabit the 

 south-western corner of the Cape Colony. None are found far 

 inland, nor removed from the influence of the moist sea-breezes. 

 The thick roots, which replace the tubers in Eulophia, appear to 

 prefer invariably a light sandy soil. 



1. A. oomosa.--/«:«Mim comma, Sunder, in Linnaa, xix, p. 73. 



2. A. sPHiERocARPA.— A ulophia spharocarpa, bonder, in Linn,,,,, 

 xix, p. 78. 



8. A. tristis.— Eulophia tristis, Sprenqel, Sy„t. IV./. iii, p. 720; 

 Satyrium triste, Limi. f., Snppl., p. 402 ; lJ,w.,h,m„, trht,; Thunberg, 

 Prodr. Plant. Cap., p. 4. 



