quently this first study deals with the Section Cucullata. 
The actual identity of the plants with colorful and 
attractive flowers of the Section Cucullata have been 
plagued with confusion and misunderstanding since the 
early days of their introduction to European horticul- 
ture. During the nineteenth century hundreds of these 
plants were flowered in England and Europe and many 
of their floral variations were noted. For the most part, 
the early botanists considered the morphological differ- 
ences as being minor and not worthy of specific rank. 
Lindley, for example, chose to combine several different 
plants as varieties of O. cucudlatum including his earher 
described O. nubigenum. This action, since no univer- 
sally accepted Code of Nomenclature existed at that 
time, prompted Reichenbach to remark (Gard. Chron. 
367, 1867) “°... he (Lindley) called this plant a good 
species (nubigenum) but when he was older it had come 
into fashion to combine very heterogeneous types into 
one species because there were too many species’. De- 
spite Reichenbach’s attempt to separate these plants into 
distinct entities, the practice started by Lindley con- 
tinued and O. Phalaenopsis, O. oltvaceum as well as O. 
andigenum were declared to be varieties of O. cucullatum 
by Nichols in 1886, Veitch in 1892, and Gower in 1899, 
respectively. 
Reichenbach maintained a vigorous separation of the 
species in this affinity, attested by his drawings and de- 
scriptions. In 1922, Kraenzlin, in his monograph of On- 
cidium, attempted to expand the work of Reichenbach 
by establishing the Section Cucullata as a distinct unit. 
This effort, although noteworthy, included several spe- 
cies which belong to other affinities. He also omitted 
O. andigenum which he placed ina section together with 
QO. cornigerum tor reasons known only to him. In general 
Kraenzlin well understood his Section Cucullata, but he 
[ 184 | 
