this again adheres to another, larger and subquadrate, of nearly the 
same texture, and which formed the process above mentioned (proscolla, 
Ricu.) on the top of thy “ 
Although I have ranked this genus under Vanda, I feel 
great doubt as to the propriety of so doing. The habit of the 
individual is unquestionably that of V. teretifolia of LINDLEY, 
and the flowers have also some affinity, especially in the struc- 
ture of the anther and pollen-mass. But that plant the author 
considers as a doubtful species of the genus, and both are cer- 
tainly very different in general appearance from the Vanda 
Roxburghit and V. paniculata, which are the original species 
that Mr Brown’s generic character was intended to embrace. — 
The main point, however, wherein the present individual 
differs from the generic definition of Vanda, as laid down by 
Mr Brown, is the want of a spur to the labellum. In this 
plant, too, there seems to be a remarkable disposition in the 
- arrangement of the petals, of which the three superior ones 
curve over the upper part of the flower, whilst the two lower 
ones are applied to the under side of the labellum; their bases 
being united with it. 
The plant here figured was received by Messrs SHEPHERD, 
at the Liverpool Garden, from Dr Waticu, and by those 
gensersen kindly communicated to me. 
Fig. 1. yee view of a Hewes Fig. 2. Front view of the same. Fig. 3. . 
- Column of fructification, with the stigma and anther. Fig. 4. Column 
of fructification with the anther (Fig. 5.) removed, and shewing the pol- 
~ Jen-masses. Fig. 6. Pollen-masses attached to their gland, and by means © 
of it to the larger gland which formed the upper point of the stigma.— 
All more or less magnified. 
