ium, inthe Herbarium of the Field Museum and in the 
United States National Herbarium has convinced me 
that this concept has its only marked difference from the 
variable 7. fimbriatum in the entire or subentire (not 
deeply fimbriate-dentate) margins of the lip. In addition, 
this concept sometimes has larger leaves (up to 5.85 cm. 
long), often has larger flowers (sepals up to 8 mm. long), 
and the more strongly ovate lip is in varying degree 
longer than broad. Although J. rhomboglossum was 
treated as a synonym of 17. fimbriatum by Schlechter in 
his orchid flora of Peru (in Fedde Repert. Beih. 9 (1921) 
147), it seems preferable to consider this entire-lipped 
form as a well-marked variety of J. fimbriatum. 
This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the 
Bolivian Mpidendrum integrilabium, which was specifi- 
“uly separated from 17. fimbriatum by the entire margins 
of the lip, is nearly identical with 27. rhomboglossum. In 
E. integrilabium the lip tends to be ovate or rhombic- 
ovate rather than suborbicular in outline (as in #7. fimbri- 
atum), and thus approaches the lip of £7. rhomboglossum 
which is more distinctly narrowed above the middle, or 
lanceolate-ovate. 
Epidendrum Friderici-Guilielmi Warscewicz & 
Reichenbach filius in Bonpl. 2 (1854) 110; in Nen. Orch. 
1 (1856) 158, t. 51—Cogniaux Dict. Ie. Orch. Epiden- 
drum (1899) t. 12. 
Epidendrum Huacapistanae WKriinzlin in Fedde Re- 
pert. 1 (1905) 183. 
Judging from the description and an excellent photo- 
graph of the type of Mpidendrum Huacapistanae in the 
Ames Herbarium, it seems clear that this concept repre- 
sents a small form of #7. F’riderici-Guilielmi as exempli- 
fied by a photograph of authentic material of that species 
(presumably from the Reichenbach Herbarium) and by 
a Bolivian collection, Cardenas 1372. 
i 220) 
