260- THE ORCHID REVIEW. (SEPTEMBER, 1923. 
Muelleri might be only a form of E. latifolia modified for self-fertilisation, 
citing Phajus Blumet as a similar case, whilst Dr. Schlechter quoted: 
Appendicula, and said he could show me cases of similar transformations. 
They also told me that Herr Zimmerman, a well-known writer on Orchids,. 
was studying the same plant with a view to the creation of a new genus. 
No literature as to Phajus or Appendicula being then available to me, I 
retained the plant as an Epipactis. 
Herr W. Zimmermann (Mitt. Bad. Landesv. Natkd. Freiburg, N. F. I. 
[1922] p. 232, and Fedde, Repertorium xviii [1922] p. 283), has now raised: 
E. Muelleri Godf. to generic rank under the name Parapactis epipactoides: 
W. Zimm. - 
Forbes states (Nass ait simiulerines in the Eastern Archipelago p. 85) 
that in Phajus Blumei fertilisation occurs through the excessive secretion of 
viscid matter by the stigma finding its way past the tongue-shaped 
rostellum to the anther and permeating the pollinia. These swell and 
either “avalanche downwards, sometimes obliterating the rostellum,” or 
whilst remaining in the anther emit pollen-tubes which make their way to- 
the stylary canal. In another form the rostellum is absent and. the anther 
ruptures and rotates forwards, until the four lower pollinia come into: 
contact with the stigma. According to Dr. Schlechter (Orch. D. Neu- 
Guinea xli) in Appendicula there are two forms. In one the foot of the 
column is reduced, but not enough to destroy the zygomorphic character of. 
the flower. In the other the foot of the column is entirely suppressed, so 
that the flower appears outwardly to be regular, the lip resembling the petals. 
In both cases it appears to be a question of pelorism. The flower has. 
reverted to an ancestral form, anterior to the differentiation of the lip. In 
both forms the formerly erect rostellum, forming a ‘separating wall” 
between anther and stigma, has been suppressed, facilitating self-fertilisation 
through the inundation of the anther by the stigmatic secretion, and the 
consequent emission of pollen-tubes in situ. 
Neither case is on all fours with Parapactis. There is no change of. 
position of the stigma, no thrusting of its edge beneath the anther,. 
no direct deposition of the pollinia upon the stigma, and the method 
of fertilisation is entirely different. The only point in common with. 
Parapactis is the absence of a rostellum. There is no trace of pelorism: 
in the latter. Parapactis does not appear to be a case of an 
insect-pollinated flower modified for self- fertilization, like Cephalanthera 
grandiflora or Ophrys apifera. Apparently it could not be pollinated by 
insects without structural modification, and there is nothing to show that 
it ever possessed a rostellum. Still, the hypochile secretes nectar, and it is 
possible that there is some method of transfer of pollinia which has so far 
escaped observation. 
