Monograph of the tribe Apostasieae (Orchidaceae) E.F. de Vogel Summary This paper embraces a full taxonomic revision of the tribe Apostasieae. is The introduction followed by an ample discussion of the taxonomic position of the Apostasieae and the affinities within the tribe. The tribes Apostasieae and Cypripedieae are regarded as forming together the subfamily Cypripedioideae of the Orchidaceae. Notes is are given on the morphology and an evaluation given on systematic characters and their value for specific delimitation. Two characters were formerly underestimated in Neuwiedia, notably the indument (maximal length of the glandless hairs) and the structure (texture) of the pericarp. The systematic treatment provides descriptions of the tribe, the genera, and the species, keys for identification,full synonymy, typification, geographicaldistribution,and an index to specimens examined. The from the the Louisiades and Apostasieae range Ceylon to Ryukyus through to North Queensland. Ranges are drawn on maps. Two genera are distinguished, Apostasia and Neuwiedia; Adactylus is reduced to sectional status under Apostasia. In Neuwiedia 8 species are distinguished among which 4 are new, viz. 3 from Borneo and I from Siam. Under N. zollingeri, 2 varieties are recognized besides the type variety, both based on former species, viz. de and de One is var. javanica (J.J.S.) Vogel var. singaporeana (Baker) Vogel. supposed new species left unnamed because its flowers are yet unknown. In had be Apostasia 7 species are recognized; many earlier names to reduced; 4 belong to sect. Apostasia and 3 to sect. Adactylus Endl. Introduction affinities still under discussion and The of Apostasieae within the Monocotyledones are there of about their the itself has is, hence, no unanimity opinion status, though group never been disputed to represent a coherent natural entity. The first written Rolfe who besides monograph was by (1889) gave, an enumeration remarks of species, general on their morphology and distribution. Taking into consider- ation the material Rolfe had at his disposal, his work was very satisfactory indeed. He to have had clear vision of the characters within the proves a important systematic group. Rolfe had with the several However, to cope difficulty that species were based on in- complete material by which essential characters remained sometimes unknown. Unfortunately, the two later monographs, by Kraenzlin (1897) and Pfitzer (1903) were largely copied from Rolfe, adding nothing new save a unsatisfactory key, but failed to add a study of the additional material collected in the preceding two decades. Since blurred that timetwo factors have the systematics of the group. First, considerable confusion caused authors of several Floras who the older was by misinterpreted species. for Second, the same cause, some later orchidologists described new species without careful them with material. their sometimes made checking type Also, descriptions were from buds and in general they attached too much value to size in describing new taxa. 314 BLUMEA VOL. XVII, No. 2, 1969 this that the need of From concise review it appears group was in urgent a revision, of the more so as a fairly large amount unnamed material had accumulated. Novelties still be The revision given here is certainly not final. can expected, especially should be careful if in Neuwiedia. But one very in describing new taxa in this group material is incomplete; it can only be done if differences are very clear. Fruiting material for this a Neuwiedia from the Islands which is in general purpose insufficient; Batu I left here suspect to represent a new species is, consequently, unnamed. The fairly abundant material now at hand has led me to reconsider the value of system- characters the ofthe atic in the group. The testing of these characters has revealed value indument which had only occasionally been mentioned. M. Siebe (1903), in his thesis: 'Ueber den AnatomischenBau der Apostasiinae' (Heidel- of berg) gives an anatomic description several species, in the meantime validating some herbarium the and ofaerial ancient names. From drawings (fig. 1—5) descriptions roots, which have no velamen, appears that Neuwiedia and Apostasia are different, although clear difference be closely related. No can observed between Apostasia and Adactylus. He hadbut little, and ill-determined materialat his disposal, so that much of the seemingly anatomic characters be specific may merely individual differences. Acknowledgements. I have enjoyed advice from and discussion with various staffmembers of the Rijksherbarium on several administrative and technical aspects, and wish to mention the names of Dr R. C. Bakhuizen van den Brink Jr and Dr M. Jacobs in particular. Mr and check J. F. Veldkamp Mr R. Geesink were so kind to the keys. The excellent drawings are from the hand of Miss R. van Crevel. The directors and staff of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Botany Department and Herbarium thank for those of the Kew I must the facilities provided to me; in particular thanks are due to Mr P. F. Hunt of Kew for his kind help. Appreciation is expressed to Dr L. A. Garay for his interest and loan of the sheets of the Oakes Ames Herbarium. the of I am greatly indebted to Trustees the University of Leyden who, by providing made it for Herbaria and a grant, possible me to pay a prolonged visit to the at Kew London. wish thank Prof. this Finally I to Dr C. G. G. J. van Steenis under whose supervision revision was accomplished and who critically polished the final text. of their directors By the kind cooperation and curators I could study the material contained in the following Herbaria: AMES Oakes Ames Orchid Herbarium, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. BM British Museum (Natural History), London, United Kingdom. BO Herbarium Bogoriense, Bogor, Java, Indonesia. BRI Department of Agriculture and Stock, Brisbane, Australia. E The Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. G Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques, Geneve, Switzerland. HBG Staatsinstitut fur allgemeine Botanik, Hamburg, Germany. K Herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom. KAG Herbarium Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan. L Rijksherbarium, Leiden, Netherlands. MAK Faculty of Science, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan. MEL National Herbarium of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. P Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Phanerogamie, Paris, France. SING The Herbarium of the Botanic Gardens, Singapore. TI Botanical Institute, Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. U Botanisch Museum & Herbarium, Utrecht, Netherlands. W Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. E. Vogel: F. de Monograph of the tribe Apostasieae (Orchidaceae) 315 TAXONOMICAL POSITION OF THE APOSTASIEAE been differences of the of this There have opinion about position group, although most that has ancestral stock ofthe historical authors agree it served as an Orchidaceae. Important and Vermeulen reviews were given by Rolfe (1889) by (1966). Blume (Bijdr. 1825, 423), when describing the first species of Apostasia, placed it, apparently without reservation, under the Orchidaceae. R. Brown in 1830 assigned Apos- tribal rank in the followed Rolfe who the tasia same family. He was by (1889), gave Pfitzer the first revision of the group, by Kraenzlin (1897) and (1903) who gave next and modern authors such Holttum Dressier Dodson revisions, by as (1953), & (i960), and Melchior in the 12th edition of Engler's Syllabus (1964). The — first to consider Apostasiaceae as a separate family in juxtaposition to Orchidaceae followed Blume who described the first — in He was Lindley 1833. was by (1833), and Neuwiedia placed it next to Apostasia, Endlicher (1837), Meisner (1842), Schlechter (1903), Ridley (1907), Godfery (1932), Gagnepain (1934), Hutchinson (1934), Backer (1949), Pulle (1952), Hutchinson (1959), Schweinfurth (1959), and Vermeulen (1966). in his Plantarum accommodated Bentham (1880), precursor to the Genera (1883), Apostasia and Neuwiedia in the Cypripedieae. Garay (i960) regards the group as a subfamily of the Orchidaceae. different the from authors who a A quite opinion on affinity stems some regard it as Mueller separate family but not in juxtaposition to Orchidaceae. F. von (1867) described the from Niemeyera stylidioides (= Apostasia stylidioides) in Hypoxidaceae, a segregate Amaryllidaceae. This relation had already been hinted at by Lindley as early as 1840 in a non-Orchidaceous has note on Apostasia. This affinity in recent years been considered by Hutchinson and The former considered ancestral (1959) Takhtajan (1959). Apostasia as to the Burmanniaceae (notably linked to Campylosiphon). first consider the last the with non-Orchidaceous Let us suggestions, affiliating group families. of A near relation Apostasia with the Burmanniaceae (sensu Hutchinson) seems not likely. In the latter (notably Campylosiphon) the latrorse anthers are placed in the inner whorl, the outer whorl being completely absent. The tendency of reduction seems reverse in of and comparison with that Apostasieae in which the 2 lateral anthers of the outer whorl the mediananther of the inner whorl are aborted. Also the dehiscence is here introrse. The supposed relation with the Hypoxidaceae (sensu Hutchinson), especially Curculigo, seems largely based on a resemblance in habit and leaves, which are folded lengthwise. This is, however, found in several other families of the Monocotyledones. In the Hypoxi- the stamens anthers whorls of daceae