upright triangular structures, one on each side of the spur 
opening, as two parts of a bifid callus and as the base of 
the front lobe is decurrent around the outside of these, 
there is some justification for this view. The *‘side lobes, ’ 
however, are quite separate from one another and in his 
view should be treated as two calli, comparable to those 
in such diverse genera as MWulophia and Diplacorchis. 1 
have described recently (in Bot. Mus. Leafl. Harv. Univ. 
10 (1942) 286) a Polystachya in which the true lateral 
lobes are decurrent in front on to the middle lobe so that 
the structures in A/ncheiridion macrorrhynchiuim may be 
homologous with those in this Polystachya. In support 
of this we have the fact that paired calli are extremely 
uncommon in the Angraecoid orchids, although they are 
recorded tor Microcoelia dolichorrhiza (Schltr. ) Summerh. 
In that case they are transversely placed and there is no 
other resemblance between that species and the species 
under discussion. 
In column structure the species is far removed from 
any Microcoelia. he androclinium is almost horizontal 
and in that respect agrees with that in sect. Mu-micro- 
cocla of that genus, but the long rostellum is very dis- 
tinct. This bears at its apex a narrow viscidium about 1.5 
mm. long which is apparently more or less continuous 
with the stipes and not markedly articulated with it as 
inmost Angraecoids. The anther is only shortly produced 
in front and does not cover the whole of the stipes as in 
most Microcoelias. 
Chauliodon Swnmerhayes gen. nov. 
Epiphytica, aphylla. Calis brevis vel brevissimus, 
radices numerosas simplices vel pauciramosas flexuosas 
emittens, apice cataphyllis acuminatis praeditus. [7flores- 
centiae ex axillis cataphyllorum ortae, simpliciter racemo- 
sae, laxiuscule multiflorae; bracteae parvae, vaginantes. 
[ 163 ] 
