Epidendrum geminiflorum Humboldt, Bonpland 
& Kunth Nov. Gen. et Sp. 1 (1816) 854—Lindley Fol. 
Orch. Epidendrum (1858) p. 49, no. 155. 
EH pidendrum cajamarcae Schlechter in Fedde Repert. 
Beih. 9 (1921) 81; ex Mansfeld in Fedde Repert. Beih. 
57 (1929) t. 117, nr. 459. 
After careful comparison of the type description of LZ. 
geminiflorum, supplemented by photographic records of 
collections in the Lindley Herbarium identified as rep- 
resenting that species, with the description and floral 
analysis of Z7. cajamarcae, it is my opinion that the two 
concepts are synonymous and that Kriinzlin was correct 
in so identifying Weberbauer 4102 (the type of FE. caja- 
marcae Schltr. ). 
An Ecuadorian collection (attributed to 17. geminiflo- 
rum by Lindley) on the same sheet with apparently topo- 
type material of that species from Popayan (Colombia) 
has the slightly larger flowers with less acuminate sepals 
and petals specified for 2. eqjamarcae. It seems highly 
probable that the more acuminate character of the sepals 
in BH. geminiflorum may be largely due to their revolute 
nature. Otherwise the discrepancies between the con- 
cepts appear to be unimportant, all the more so in com- 
paring the lip of 2. geminiflorum as drawn by Lindley 
with that of 27. cayamarcae as depicted by Schlechter. 
Epidendrum Hartwegii Lindley in Bentham PI. 
Hartweg. (1844) 150; Fol. Orch. Epidendrum (1853) p. 
86, no. 1138. 
E’pidendrum fuscum Schlechter in Fedde Repert. Beih. 
9 (1921) 84; ex Mansfeld in Fedde Repert. Beih. 57 
(1929) t. 118, nr. 463. 
Judging from the description and a floral analysis of 
E/pidendrum fuscum made under the direction of Dr. 
Schlechter, this species cannot reasonably be separated 
[ 228 } 
