March. 1935. 
The Queensland Naturalist. 
61 
7. Labellum spurred Dipodium 
Labelleum not spurred Eulophia 
S. Sepals and petals all alike . . . . Thelymitra 
Lowermost petal modified into a distinct 
labellum 9 
I have come before you to-night in a spirit of diffi- 
dence as the knowledge of Orchids has increased so very 
much of recent years and such a vast number of species 
have been described that the family has become almost 
entirely the study of specialists. For my part, when I re- 
ceive Orchids that are new and present any great difficul- 
ties as to classification. I nearly always send them to 
specialists in Australia >uch as Dr. Rogers, of Adelaide, 
and Mr. Rupp, of Woy Woy. N.S.W.: or I might send 
them to England to the Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew. to 
the < >rchid specialists there. Mr. V. S. Summerhayes. 
To illustrate this I may say that recently I received 
from Mr. B. D. Grimes specimens of a Dendrobium from 
Northern Queensland which did not agree with any 
Queensland species previously recorded, but seemed to 
come nearest to one from New Caledonia. A description 
wa> drawn up and sent to the Royal Botanic Gardens. 
Kew. with the note that if it was new to science and dis- 
tinct from the Melanesian D. crispatum , a description 
should be publi>hed under the name of D. Grimesii by Mr. 
Summerhayes and myself, and this was done in a recent 
number of the Kew “Bulletin.’* 
NOTES ON TWO CLOSELY ALLIED DENDROBS. 
By the Rev. H. M. R. Rupp. Woy Woy. N.S.W. 
Dendrobium delieatum Bailey. South Queensland. 
D. Kestevenii Rupp, near Port Stephens. N.S.W. 
In the proceedings of the Linnean Society of N.S.W., 
Ivi.. Part 3. 1931. I described a Dendrob sent by Dr. H. 
Leighton Kesteven. of Bulladelah. N.S.W.. as a new 
species. Subsequently th^ view was expressed that D. 
Kestevenii was identical with F. M. Bailey’s South 
Queensland species D. delieatum. In the same journal, 
lviii.. parts 3-4. 1933. I discussed the question without be- 
ing able to reach any definite conclusion, owing to the 
uncertain identity of several forms received under the 
name D. delieatum. Further examination of plants and 
racemes during 1933-4 has led me to form the opinion 
expressed in the present paper. Undoubtedly the two 
plants are very closely allied, but I do not think D . Kes- 
tevenii can be regarded as a form of D. delieatum . 
The type locality of D. delieatum , according to 
Bailey (Q.F1. v. p. 1527), is “Main Range, near Too- 
