cular and spreading. The anther is transversely elongated 
and contains two large, waxy pollinia. ‘The widely sepa- 
rated functional areas of the stigmas at the dilated sum- 
mit of the footless gynostemium are sufficient evidence 
to indicate that P. floripecten is generically distinet from 
P. ruscifolia. (ef. plate of P. ruscifolia). 
The mere mention of widely separated receptive stig- 
mas, to one familiar with the genera of the Pleurothal- 
lidinae, should suggest the highly technical genus Stelis, 
and were it not for the very unusual perianth and the le- 
panthiform vegetative structures, I think that one would 
be inclined to refer P. floripecten to Stelis. But this would 
be a debatable procedure. ‘To make this clear several flow- 
ers of characteristic species of Stelis are here figured. I 
do not believe that it would be conformable to sound 
practice to remove P. floripecten and its allies from Pleu- 
rothallis and transfer them to Stelis. They would consti- 
tute as aberrant a group in Stelis as they surely do in 
Pleurothallis. (cf. plate of Stelis species). 
Barbosa Rodriguez in his studies of the Brazilian spe- 
cies concluded that they were referable to Lepanthes. 
Vegetatively they are lepanthiform and the widely spread- 
ing connate sepals resemble very closely the sepals of cer- 
tain species of Lepanthes, but the petals, labellum and 
gynostemium are very different from what obtains in that 
genus. 
In my opinion the species of the section Lepanthop- 
sis represent a distinct genus. 
Lepanthopsis Ames, gen. nov. 
Sepala plus minusve subaequalis, patentia, breviter 
vel conspicue connata; lateralia altius connata. Petala 
multo breviora, membranacea, orbicularia vel elliptica. 
Labellum ad basin columnae sessile, simplex, valde mem- 
branaceum. Columna brevissima, apoda, antice utrinque 
lobo plus minusve carnoso instructa; lobis columnae stig- 
[3] 
