fashion, but with a somewhat different content. On both 
occasions, however, he included the sympodial Kulophia- 
like Angraecum maculatum with the remainder, all 
monopodial orchids. At that time Lindley remarked: 
‘‘Oeceoclades will probably comprehend all the Eulophia- 
like epiphytes... ; it is very near Eulophia, from which 
its coriaceous, not plaited leaves, distinguish it among 
other things. ”’ 
Thus, from the very beginning Lindley considered 
Oecceoclades to represent Eulophia-like plants. He em- 
phasized his conviction once more in 1859 (Journ. Linn. 
Soc. 83: 86) by saying ‘*... it is probably that O. macu- 
lata is the only plant to which the generic name will 
attach.’ Since that time the remaining species of Oeceo- 
clades have all been transferred to various angraecoid 
genera. Consequently the genus Oeceoclades must be 
typified by O. maculata, the only Eulophia-like plant. 
In 1887, Pfitzer in his Entwurf einer natiirlichen An- 
ordnung der Orchideen p. 87-88 established the mono- 
typic genus Mulophidium which he also based on Angrae- 
cum maculatum. It is difficult to understand why he chose 
to follow that particular course when he was fully aware 
of Lindley’s suggestion that the name Oeceoclades be 
applied only to O. maculata: ‘‘Ich muss Hulophidiwm 
maculatum entsprechend Lindley’s Vermuthung als den 
Typus einer besondren Gattung betrachten. . . “— 
Since both genera, Oeceoclades Lindl. and Hulophidium 
Pfitz. are based on the same type—Angraecum macula- 
tum V.indl.—Oececeoclades must be reinstated because of 
the rule of priority. 
Summerhayes, in 1957, published a synopsis of the 
genus Hulophidium (Bull. Jard. Bot. Bruxelles 27 (3): 
391-403). In that study he argued that Pfitzer and sub- 
** In keeping with Lindley’s supposition, I must regard Eulophidium 
maculatum as the type of a special genus.”’ 
[ 250 ] 
