Volean Tajumulco, J.A.Steyermark 37256 (sterile) (Herb. Ames, Herb. 
Field Mus.); also Voledin Zunil, 4.F.Skutch 943 (Herb. Ames). 
Satvapor: San Vicente, Volcan de San Vicente, P.C. Standley 21569 
(sterile) (Herb. Ames, Herb. Gray). 
Costa Rica: Zarcero, A. Smith H. 180 (sterile) (Herb. Ames); de 
Alajuela, vicinity of Fraijanes, P.C. Standley & Rubén Torres R. 47556, 
47608, 47611 (all sterile) (Herb. Ames). 
LIL. Tue Strarus or DICHAEA PENDULA 
Dichaea pendula (4 whl.) Cogniaux in Urban Symb. 
Antill. 4 (1908) 182, nom. conf. 
Limodorum pendulum Aublet Pl. Guian. France. (1775) 
819, t. 822, nom. conf: 
The sterile plant illustrated by Aublet is doubtless the 
same as D.muricata. However, the floral analysis is ap- 
parently a disproportionate drawing of the flower of a 
Bletia, the lip being only about one-third the size of the 
other floral segments. So far as we know, such a discrep- 
ancy in the size of the lip in respect to the other floral 
segments is not found in either Dichaea or Bletia. All 
of the floral segments of these genera are usually nearly 
equal in length. The slender-clavate, arcuate column il- 
lustrated by Aublet resembles that of a Bletia. 
If it were possible to place Limodorum pendulum ac- 
curately it would doubtless be found to be conspecific, 
as to vegetative characters, with D.muricata (Sw.) Lindl. 
instead of being closely allied with the West Indian D. 
echinocarpa, to which it is usually referred. However, the 
confused plate and accompanying incongruous descrip- 
tion of Limodorum pendulum necessitate its relegation to 
the status of nomen confusum. 
The illustrations of Dichaea pendula by Cogniaux (in 
Martius FI. Bras. 8, pt. 6 (1906) 486, t. 102, fig. 1) and 
by Schlechter and Hoehne (in An. das Mem. do Instituto 
de Butantan, Botan. 1, fase. 2, 47, 'T. 11) are what we 
consider to be representative specimens of D. muricata. 
[ 80 | 
