19 
elements with are incompatible Avith those of the 
Australian plant. The differences are perhaps best shown 
in tabular form : — 
Ornithochilus 
P. hillii 
Labellum On a long, broad claw. 
Mid-lobe oi 
labelluxn Clawed, inflexed, lobu- 
late and fimbriate with 
a velvety flap over the 
mouth of the short in- 
curved spur. 
Column-foot Absent. 
Pollinia 2, sub-globose or 
oblong. 
Sessile. 
There is no mid-lobe 
and no flap over the 
orifice of the spur. Spur 
with a large, finger- 
like callus rising from 
the base of the anterior 
wall. 
Present but very small. 
4 in 2 groups of 2 each. 
Duthie (8) in his Key to the Vandeae states, ‘‘Column 
Avith a very short foot; lip Avith a lar^e claAv, a bent spur 
and a 2-lobulate apical lobe, the lateral lobes fimbriateC^ 
But later in the same worlv lie (9) alters the number of 
apical lobes to three and adds, . the tAVO lateral re- 
curved and pectinate, the central triangular, entire or 
infolded; the mouth of the spur closed by two calli pro- 
jecting from its back and front Avails, the latter hairy. 
Duthie 's modification of the concept of Ornitho- 
chilns, although alloAving for the presence of a column- 
foot, remoATS the Australian plant still further from its 
compass by closing the orifice of the spur Avith tAvo calli, 
the opening in this plant being (piite free of obstruction 
except for the projection through it of a single finger- 
like callus. 
Ornithochilus, then, has a highly developed 2 or 3- 
lobulate mid-lobe to its labellum and a sac closed by 
anterior and posterior calli and by the reflexing of one or 
more apical lobes. The Australian plant has no mid-lobe 
Avliatever and an open sac containing a solitary callus. 
As the many genera of the Sarcanthinae are separated 
largely on the presence or absence of a column-foot and 
on the formation of the labellum, and, Avhere the latter is 
saccate, upon the presence, absence, or position, of calli 
AA’ithin it, the fact that the plant under discussion varies 
so extensively from the accepted definition of Ornitho- 
chilus is, in the Avriter's opinion, sufficient to justify its 
reniOA^al from that genus. 
When making the transfer from Saccolahium Bentham 
(4) gave no reasons for doing so. His first reference to 
the plant is in his brief discussion of the species excluded 
by him from Saccolahium and he merely states, ''Saccola- 
hium hilUF. Muell. is rather an Ornithochilnsd^ and his 
