sequently Schlechter, both in their studies emphasized 
the vegetative aspects of the plants without paying much 
attention to floral details, which resulted in a rather poor 
circumscription of the genus. 
‘l'o augment this one-sided presentation, Summerhayes 
provides the following observations: 
‘*For some time now I have been struck by the marked 
similarity in floral structure between typical members of 
Eulophidium, such as F. maculatum (LINDL.) PFITZ., 
on the one hand, and species which have always been re- 
tained in Hulophia such as I. saundersiana RCHB.F. 
and the Asiatic 17. macrostachya LIN DL., on the other. 
All these species have a marked quadrilobed labellum 
with two short parallel or slightly divergent calli at the 
base and no long keels or hair-like outgrowths such as 
are so widely distributed in Mulophia. The side lobes 
almost invariably have marked darker veins. . . Some- 
time the two lower lobes, or lateral lobes if you prefer 
to call them that, are much reduced, occasionally so 
much that the labellum is almost bilobed. The spur is 
relatively short and often swollen, sometimes it is more 
or less shortly bilobed at the apex. 
‘*As regards the vegetative structure the aerial pseudo- 
bulbs may be heteroblastic with 1-8 leaves at the apex 
or homoblastic (with several elongated internodes) with 
one or more leaves at the apex. All intermediates can 
be found between a clearly heteroblastic condition with 
no cataphylls or leaves arising along the pseudobulbs, 
through forms in which the lower swollen internodes are 
quite short and other forms with only 2 elongated swol- 
len internodes, to typical homoblastic conditions where 
there are clearly several well-defined elongated swollen 
internodes with cataphylls arising from the lower nodes 
and leaves from the uppermost. 
“The great majority of species have markedly petio- 
[ 251 | 
