are markedly distinct, they are very similar in the vege- 
tative structures and difficult to distinguish apart when 
sterile, unless, as I think is true, the margin of the leaf 
of L. anthoctenium always has the appearance of being 
serrate, while the leaf of LL. melanantha has asmooth or 
unserrated margin. In the specimens I have examined 
this distinction has been constant. 
Reichenbach’s description of Pleurothallis melanan- 
tha is, I think, misleading because in it he characterizes 
the petals as being ligulate. In his herbarium the sketch 
that accompanies the Wright plant shows the petals much 
longer than wide and conspicuously 1-nerved. In the 
specimens of Wright 3342 (the type number of Plewro- 
thallis melanantha), that I have examined, I have found 
the petals to be nearly orbicular and without a conspicu- 
ous median nerve. Reichenbach described the labellum 
as being cordiform, acute. In the flowers of the type 
number that I have examined the labellum is cordiform, 
obtuse. Perhaps there is much variation in the perianth 
organs of Lepanthopsis melanantha and my observations 
may differ from Reichenbach’s because my material rep- 
resents one of the variants. 
Thegynostemium of Lepanthopsis melanantha is diffi- 
cult to interpret because the flowers available for study 
are old with the subtending capsules about ready to de- 
hise. Unfortunately this species does not appear to be 
available in perfect condition. In the flowers of Wright 
3342 the gynostemium has terminal stigmas. These stig- 
mas are very small and form two erect, conical or sub- 
globose masses which are contiguous through the centre 
of the clinandrium. It would seem that the generic af- 
finity is rather with Lepanthopsis than with Pleurothallis. 
Cuna, 1860-1864. C. Wright 3342. 
Santo Dominco, Prope Constanza in sylva frondosa 1250 m., 
Tuerckheim 3089 fide Cogniaux in Urb. Symb. Antill. 8 (1909) 126. 
[ 23 ] 
