So far, I know of only two species referable to this 
very distinct genus. Of the second species, Cleisomeria 
pilosula, there is an excellent detailed watercolor in the 
collections at Kew prepared from living material col- 
lected by Kerr, no. 156, in Laos. 
Cleisomeria pilosula (Gagn.) Seidenf. & Garay in Bot. Tidskr. 67: 
120, 1972. 
Basionym: Cleisostoma pilosulum Gagn. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr. 79: 
35, 19382. 
Syn.: Saccolabium pilosulum (Gagn.) Tang & Wang in Acta Phy- 
totax. Sin. 1: 97, 1951. 
Cleisostoma BI., Bijdr. 6: t. 8, June 1825. 
Type: Cleisostoma sagittatum Bl. 
When J.J. Smith published his nomenclatorial re- 
vision of the genus Sarcanthus he exclaimed: ‘‘It is 
really remarkable that one could have had Sarcanthus 
Lindl. and Cleisostoma Bl. next to one another, although 
it [follows] is rather obvious not only from the generic 
descriptions, but also from the species assigned to them at 
the beginning that they completely overlap one another. 
Since Sarcanthus Lindl. is older, Cleisostoma must be 
added to it as a synonym.”” (free translation) I wholly 
concur with Smith that the two genera are inseparable 
taxonomically. However, Cleisostoma is the name that 
should be adopted instead of Sarcanthus for two inde- 
pendent reasons. 1, Sarcanthus Lindl. as currently used 
is a later homonym, hence illegitimate. 2, It has been 
established beyond any doubt that Clezsostoma antedates 
Sarcanthus. 
Sarcanthus was published by Lindley for the first time 
in 1824 and he based his diagnosis on Mpidendrum prae- 
morsum Roxb., now included in the genus Acampe. In 
1826, Lindley published Sarcanthus the second time 
typifying it by S. rostratus Lindl. This second Sarcan- 
[ 168 | 
