Lockhartia hologlossa Schlechter in Fedde Re- 
pert. Beih. 7 (1920) 199; in Fedde Repert. Beih. 57 (1929) 
te 77 dy Ue.’ 27a. 
Lockhartia unicornis Schlechter in Fedde Repert. 
Beih. 7 (1920) 200; in Fedde Repert. Beih. 57 (1929) 
rhs Nee 275. 
A critical examination of the descriptions of these Co- 
lombian concepts, amplified by the floral analyses cited 
above, indicate that they should be considered conspecific. 
According to the descriptions, there is a considerable 
discrepancy between the small flowers of Lockhartia holo- 
glossa and the relatively large flowers of L. wnicornis. 
However, as often noted in the case of many tropical 
orchids, there is a wide range in the size of the flowers 
of one species during the course of development. Accord- 
ingly, a separation which depends chiefly on size is apt to 
be unwarranted. Furthermore, the morphological char- 
acters of the floral parts of the two species are closely 
similar and surely not worthy of specific separation. 
Two recently studied collections from the Department 
of Cuzco, Peru, appear to be referable to this variable 
species. While they show wide variation in vegetative 
size, the sepals and petals of both collections are inter- 
mediate in size between those of L. hologlossa and L. 
unicorns. 
Peru: Cuzco; Prov. of Quispicanchis, Ttio to Murayaca, Marcapata, 
at 1960 meters altitude, on rocks, perianth yellow, January 28, 1943, 
C. Vargas 3138,—Prov. of Urubamba, Machu-Picchu, at 2020 meters 
altitude, on rock, flower yellow, January 4-5, 1946, Vargas 5546. 
Telipogon Hercules Reichenbach filius ex Kriinzlin 
in Ann. Naturh. Hofmus. Wien 88 (1919) 27. 
In the Ames Herbarium there is a specimen bearing 
the label ‘“Telipogon Hercules Rb. f. Pueblo-Laguna 
Columbia: Bei Pasto. 1500’ lg. Lehmann Typus!’’ This 
collection, which has the same general facies and floral 
[ 57 ] 
