should prevail through the rules that establish valid pub- 
lication. (Cf. illustrations of the flowers from the type 
specimens. ) 
In 1918, Schlechter proposed still another species of 
the S.rubens alliance, naming it S.ovypetala. This species 
was also obtained from Guatemala. Aside from incon- 
sequential differences, the only strong character that sep- 
arates this species from S. rwbens is the unusual texture 
and form of the petals. (Cf. illustration in the text of a 
flower from the type specimen. ) 
Stelis ovypetala has been a puzzling species chiefly 
because of its extraordinary rarity. 
To reduce it to synonomy before 
exhaustive studies of it could be 
made, seemed unwise. Recently I 
received from the Republic of Hon- 
duras dried specimens indisputably 
referable to S. oxvypetala. These 
specimens accompanied by flowers 
preserved in alcohol seemed to con- 
stitute evidence showing that S. owypetala might well be 
a distinct although a weak species. A plate carefully 
drawn from this material is issued herewith. After the 
plate was completed, I studied four flowers taken from 
the dried specimens to compare the perianth organs with 
the flowers preserved in alcohol. As luck would have it, 
one of the dried flowers had the characteristic petals of 
S.rubens and made necessary a close examination of every 
one of the twelve plants constituting Edwards’ no. 545. 
Four of the plants agreed fairly closely with typical SS! 
rubens, differing only in having somewhat larger flowers, 
and petals that proved to be less cuneate in outline and 
less thickened at the rounded apex. In my opinion S, 
ovypetala is simply a variant of S. rubens and should 
be reduced to varietal rank. 
[9] 
