140 THE ORCHID REVIEW 
viridis, both sporting into Catasetum tridentatum, and producing it when 
seeds of the former were sown. His conclusion was that all were forms of 
the same species. His other observations were significant. In a letter to 
Lindley he had asked ave you aware that Catasetum and Myanthus 
are not seed-bearing, but that Monachanthus bears seed abundantly?” And 
in the paper just quoted he remarked :—‘“ Here we have traces of sexual 
difference in Orchidaceots flowers. I have seen hundreds of Catasetum 
tridentatum . - + Without ever finding one specimen with seeds, while 
those bulbs which, according to Dr. Lindley’s description, belonged to 
Monachanthus viridis, astonished me by their gigantic seed-vessels.” 
Darwin investigated the matter in detail, and arrived at the conclusion 
that the flowers of Catasetum tridentatum were males, those of Mona- 
chanthus viridis females, and that Myanthus barbatus represented a her- 
maphrodite form of the Same species. The latter point I have shown to be 
erroneous. In arriving at his conclusions Darwin was evidently influenced 
to some extent by the observations of Lindley and Schomburgk, which are 
very misleading, though the latter never stated that he had seen the three 
growing on the same individual plant, as represented by Darwin. The 
fact is, Schomburgk confused the females of two different species under the 
name Monachanthus viridis, just as Lindley had done, which is the secret 
of all the confusion. 
The original Monachanthus viridis of Lindley is the female of Cata- 
setum trifidum, Hook., otherwise Myanthus cernuus, Lindl. ; the one after- 
wards figured by Lindley at t, 1752 of the Botanical Register is the female 
of Catasetum tridentatum; and that figured by Schomburgk, and also 
Darwin, is the female of Catasetum barbatum, otherwise Myanthus barbatus, 
- Lindl. It naturally follows that the latter is not hermaphrodite, but simply 
male, as I have repeatedly proved by careful analysis. His Monachanthus 
viridis is the female of the same, but his Catasetum tridentatum is the male 
of another species. And this does not quite end the matter, for Lindley 
remarked that Catasetum cristatum “had been found to sport into C. 
tridentatum ”’ (Bot. Reg., 
The simple fact is that the 
paper—* On the three re 
—1is erroneous. 
But while I was able to clear u 
Markable sexual forms of Catasetum tridentatum ” 
p the above confusion there was another 
He called it ¢, heteranthum, though he admitted that the 
