leaves produced at the top of a heteroblastic pseudobulb 
are originating independently from separate nodes, which 
may or may not be closely approximate. The misunder- 
standing of the nature of the heteroblastic pseudobulb 
caused Summerhayes to enlarge and alter the generic 
description of Mulophidium, which unfortunately now 
encompasses several criteria applicable only to Hu/lophia. 
Likewise the similarities in floral structure, mentioned 
by him, we believe are produced through convergent 
evolution rather than through the processes of speciation. 
Although florally Hulophia macrostachya is very simi- 
lar to those found in many plants of Oeceoclades, the 
thin, plicate leaves and the homoblastic pseudobulbs 
immediately exclude it from that relationship. If FH. 
macrostachya is to be admitted to Oeceoclades, then FE. 
graminea, I’. euglossa, E.. guineénsis, and other related 
species would have to be included also. For additional 
names see the list of Mulophia Sect. Pulchrae Kral. at 
the end of this paper. 
Both Lindley and Pfitzer were explicit about such 
generic characters as the heteroblastic pseudobulbs, cori- 
aceous, conduplicate leaves and Eulophia-like flowers. 
Consequently we adhere to the original circumscription 
of the genus in our assignment of the species. 
Oeceoclades Lindl. in Bot. Reg. 18: sub t. 1522, Sept. 
1, 18382. 
Syn.: Aeceoclades Duch. in Orbigny, Dict. 9: 170, 
1849. 
Saccolabium Sect. Oecceoclades (Lindl.) Cor- 
dem., Fl. Reunion 197, 1895. 
Lectotype: Angraecum maculatum  Lindl.— 
Lindl]. in Journ. Linn. Soc. 3: 36, 1859. 
Eulophidium Pfitz., Entw. Natur. Anordn. 
Orch. 87-89, 1887. 
[ 253 ] 
