SEPTEMBER, [9 4,| THE ORCHID REVIEW. 281 
(| RHYNCHOSTYLIS GUTTATA. ES] 
T has long been evident that Reichenbach’s reduction of all the forms of 
Rhynchostylis, with the exception of R. gurwalica, to forms ofa single 
species, with a distribution from North India and Ceylon to Java and the 
Philippines, was too sweeping, and that a revision must some day be 
attempted. His inclusion of Saccolabium violaceum in the genus was a 
further extension that need not trouble us, as this plant does not agree in 
structure, but he subsequently described two additional species having the 
typical Rhynchostylis structure, under the names of Saccolabium littorale 
and S. Berkeleyi, which adds a further complication. How many of these 
Fig. 33. RHYNCHOSTYLIS GUTTATA. 
forms will ultimately prove distinct is uncertain, but there is one of them 
that has long been known in gardens as Saccolabium guttatum, Lindl., 
which Reichenbach himself at an earlier date called Rhynchostylis paar 
(Bonplandia, 1854, p. 93). To it has been referred a plant which has just 
flowered in the collection of Lieut. Robert D. R. Troup, Wembdon, 
Bridgwater, and which he collected between the Pindari Glacier and 
Naina Tal, in the North-West Provinces of India. It quite agrees with the 
North-western plant which bears this name, and also with the form 
figured in the Orchids of the Sikkim Himalaya by King and Pantling, under 
the name of Rhynchostylis retusa, these authors following Reichenbach in 
referring all as forms of one very variable species. It may be interesting fo 
