- 88 — 



tence seems to be rather rigid, (though not expressly mentioned in the 

 description) and each encloses one or tv/o flowers enveloped by their 

 proper thin bracteoles. So it may be combined with the Scaphochlamys 

 group. Here also G. Prainianiim Ridl, another Eugastrochilus with numerous 

 imbricate bracts but with a slender spike arising directly from the rhizome 

 seems to belong. Both these species are placed by Ridley among the 

 "Mesanthi" as is also G. Scapliochlamys, together with G. panduratum 

 and G. curtisii This group seems to me a very unnatural one. 



As a third monotypical group here may be disposed G. Kunstleri (Baker) 

 Val, the flowers of which have much in common with the üastrochilus 

 type; while the inflorescence is different both from the pulcherrimum and 

 from the scaphochlamys type. The structure of lip and stamen however, 

 does not agree with any known species of Gastrochilus. 



Taking the inflorescence as the chief principle and the anther structure 

 as a secundary principle, I propose the following scheme of a subdivision 

 of the genus. 



Subgenus 1 Densiflorae: (= terminales.) 

 Sectio A. Nudae (Eugastrochilus.) 



Subsectio A Acranthae (e.g. G. pulcherrimum Wall.) 



Subsectio B. Hedianthae (e.g. G. pulchellum Ridl.) 

 Sectio B. Cristatae (Paragastrochilus.) 



Subsectio A. Rimosae (e.g. G. panduratum, G. cochinchinense (Gagn.) Val. 



Subsectio B. Porosae (e.g. G. Curtisii, G. grandiflorum.) 



Subgenus 11 Scaphochlamydae 

 Sectio A. Nudae (Eugastrochilus.) 



Subsectio A. Exanthae (G. longiflorum.) 



Subsectio B. Mesanthae (G. Prainianum.) 

 Sectio B. Cristatae. 



Subsectio A. Axillares (G. angustifolium.) 



B. Radicales (G. malaccanum = Scaphochlamys ; G. laxi- 



f lor urn.) 



Subgenus 111 Strobiliformes (e.g. Gastrochilus Kunsileri (Baker) Val.) 



According to Schlechter (in Fedde, Repertorium 1913) the name 

 Gastrochilus Wall. (1829) cannot be maintained because it is ulterior to 

 Gastrochilus Don (1825) an Orchidacea. The latter genus being considered 

 at that time by all botanists to be a synonym of Saccolabium, Bl., the 

 Wallichian genus was generally accepted as valid, (see Viennarules 1 905 art 50). 



Eighty four years post dato the well reputed Orchidologists Ridley, J.J. 

 Smith, Schlechter having unanimously come to the conclusion that the 

 rejection of the name Gastrochilus Don had been the consequence of an 

 error, Schlechter undertook to restore that genus to its titles by which res- 



