the species belong to otherwise leafy genera or should 
they form distinct leafless genera? 
In view of this doubt as to the generic conformity (or 
otherwise) of the various species and the fact that many 
new combinations will in any case be necessary under the 
correct generic name Microcoelia, | have re-investigated 
the genus. Unfortunately owing to war conditions I have 
been unable to examine the type-specimens of several of 
the species and accurate placing of these will have to 
await amore favorable opportunity. It has seemed worth 
while, however, to place on record such decisions as could 
profitably be made from the material and information 
available. 
The final result of this examination, put shortly, is 
that the species of Microcoelia torm, on the whole, a nat- 
ural genus, possessing many features in common apart 
from the leafless habit, but that several species have to 
be transterred to other genera. In addition I have dis- 
covered some remarkable forms which can only be satis- 
factorily treated as new genera. 
The species most obviously differing from the others 
are those with the elongated climbing stems. These, of 
course, include the ty pe of Gussonea (G.aphylla (‘Vhouars) 
A. Rich.) and therefore form Schlechter’s section Mu- 
gussonea. When, however, the name Microcoelia Lindl. 
is adopted for the genus, the type species is MM. evilis 
Lindl., and this has a short stem. On examination of the 
long-stemmed forms I cannot see how they differ from 
the genus So/enangis Schltr. except in the leafless habit, 
so I have transferred them to this genus. Angraecum 
macrorrhynchium Schitr., mentioned already, is an aber- 
rant form, for which I am creating a new genus described 
below. 
Excluding the above, as well as some even more re- 
markable plants described below for the first time, the 
| $304 
