Until 1910, Stelis Liebmannit remained the only 
representative of itsallianceintheregion northof Panama. 
Inthat year Rudolph Schlechter proposed twonew species 
from Guatemala, namely S.rubens Schitr.and S. T'uerch- 
heimu Schltr. In his notes regarding the affinities of 
SS. rubens, Schlechter mentioned S. gracilis Ames. It 
would seem that at this time (the Reichenbachian her- 
barium was still inaccessible through the terms of Reich- 
enbach’s will) Schlechter had not seen anything eluci- 
dating S. Liebmannn, otherwise he should have cited the 
Liebmann plant as a close ally of S. rubens. It is note- 
worthy, however, that the comparison of S. rubens with 
S. gracilis throws some light on this matter, because while 
in floral characters these species are not at all similar, 
they are in their slender habit with filiform rachis and 
tiny flowers very much alike and through their slender- 
ness quite distinct from the Costa Rican species of the 
alliance about to be noticed below. 
Why Schlechter should have regarded as a new 
species the plant he described as Stelis T'uerchheimi is 
difficult to understand when it is compared carefully with 
S. rubens. Perhaps he relied on the color of the flowers ; 
but if he did, it should be emphasized that color is a weak 
character in Stelis, because in identical plants, the color 
of the sepals may range from greenish yellow to bronzy- 
purple, influenced, it would seem, by the intensity of 
the light to which the flowers are exposed. In my studies 
of Schlechter’s types of S. rubens and S. Tuerckheimiu | 
havebeen unable to find substantial differentiating charac- 
ters that keep them apart. I believe they are conspecific 
and furthermore I am convinced that they are indis- 
tinguishable from 8. Liebmannn. If my conclusions are 
justified then it would seem that for the plant which has 
borne the names S. Liebmanniu Reichb.f., S. rubens 
Schltr. and S. Tuerckhermiu Schltr. the name S. rubens 
[5] 
