Microstylis ophioglossoides Nutt. 8. mexicana Lind- 
ley in Bot. Reg. 15 (1829) t. 1290, quoad tabellam 
ex parte. 
Malaxis maianthemifolha A. Richard & Galeotti in 
Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 8, 8 (1845) 18, non Schlecht. & 
Cham. (18381). 
Dienia mqjanthemifola Reichenbach filius in Lin- 
naea 19 (1847) 869. 
Microstylis fastigiata Reichenbach filius in Linnaea 
22 (1849) 834. 
Ophrys ensifolia Pavon Mss. apud Ridley in Journ. 
Linn. Soc. 24 (March 1888) 826, i synon. 
Microstylis longisepala Ridley in Journ. Linn. Soc. 
24 (March 1888) 327. 
Microstylis inguella Reichenbach filius in Flora 71 
(April 1888) 153. 
Malaais longisepala O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. 2 
(1891) 673. 
Malaxis linguella Ames in Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 
B35 (1922) 84. 
As Dr. Ridley points out in his monograph of Mi- 
crostylis (Journ. Linn. Soc. 24 (1888) 826), the figures in 
the Botanical Register (t. 1290) of the complete plant and 
also of the flowering scape represent Malawxis fastigiata 
and not M. ophioglossoides. Reichenbach proposed the 
name fastigiata as a substitute for the descriptive maian- 
themifolia which was invalidated by its earlier use for 
another plant. 
The concept, Microstylis longisepala, was erected by 
Ridley to describe a plant which he says is ‘‘Very near 
M. fastigiata, especially the form collected by Pavon, 
but the flowers are larger, and the longer sepals are very 
conspicuous.” However, a record of the type of Micro- 
stylis longisepala in our herbarium shows a plant which 
exactly agrees with some specimens of MZ. fastigiata. 
[117 ] 
