KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 50- N:0 3- 49 



sent were somewhat unlike, one of them is of exactly the same form as in C. biflora; 

 the other is 13 mm. long and 10 mm. wide, but I hava seen the same type in C. 

 biflora. Moreover, I fail to see that the lip shoiild be more siiddenly contracted at 

 the base in C. falklandica, and after a miniite comparison with many specimens of 

 C. biflora, I must regard it as a synonym of that species. 



Professor Kränzlin's treatment of this plant in Engler's Pflanzenreich is 

 notevvorthy. He quotes as collector »Nichol!» His description is reproduced from 

 Spencer Moore's, but instead of 2 — 4 flowers, Kränzlin writes 4 — 6, not to mention 

 other slight differences. One is thus led to believe that he has seen the type spe- 

 cimens. But a closer examination of his treatise made me suspect, that he never 

 saw the right plant. For in spite of his description »folia 10 — 12 cm. longa cum 

 petiolo» and »scapi ex axillis foliorum ad 25 cm. alti» he places it in his section A. 

 Breviscapce, Scapi quam folia vix longiores pauciflori, while C. biflora belongs to B. 

 Lo7igiscaptE, Scapi elongati quam folia semper multo longiores»! Further, he makes 

 the following remark on C. falklandica: Affinis C. unifloroe Lam. cujus varietas »flo- 

 ribus punctulatis» simillima, differt tamen corollae fabrica et foliis longioribus. Pro- 

 vided that Mr Spencer Moore sent me the right plant, and this, I think, is beyond 

 doubt, there is no sense in Kränzlin's note. I have not been able to discover a 

 variety »floribus punctulatis» of C. uniflora Kränzlin's book; I have seen much of 

 this plant, but never any specimens, that lacked the small dark brown spöts, which 

 are visible on Lamarck's plate also. Now, this is of little importance, but how could 

 Kränzlin ever write that Spencer Moore' s plant, which I cannot keep distinct 

 from the common C. biflora and which, after the author himself, is at least very 

 nearly related to this, is very like (simillima) C. uniflora? For C. biflora and C. 

 uniflora are absolutely unlike. The plant, about which he made that remark, can- 

 not have been C. falklandica (Sp. Moore). I cannot even guess, how this mistake 

 arose, if Kränzlin did see the right plant. — 



W. F., Roy Cove, very rare (Nichol! Vallentin 8!). — Coquimbo— Straits of 

 Magellan, Argentina, Patagonia. 



(C. Darwinii Benth., found at Crooked Inlet according to Wright, is not this 

 species, but merely C. Fothergillii. 1 hav^e seen the samples; they bore no leaves, 

 but the flowers and remarkably tomentose buds of that plant ought not to be mis- 

 taken for any other. C. Darwinii is widely different.) 



29. C. Fothergillii SoLAND. 



The lower lip varies as to the extension and intensity of the beautiful dark red 

 colour; in typical specimens, such as figured by Hooker, the ground colour is 

 yellow with a broad strip of dark crimson on the outside and dense streaks on the 

 inside, but I have also found it almost completely red with only a bright yellow 

 area below the fleshy, white börder. There is also a paler form with only a touch 

 of red. This is one of the most showy of Falkland plants; nevertheless, it is auto- 

 gamous. The flovers are slightly proterandrous, but there is always enougli pollen 

 left when the stigma is fully developed and I have observed, that the anthers come 



K. Sv. Vet. Åkad. Handl. Band 50. N:o 3. 7 



