Epidendrum Matthewsi Reichenbach filius in Gard. 
Chron. n.s. 26 (1886) 458 and ser. 8, 2 (1887) 431. 
Lipidendrum gnomus Schlechter in Fedde Repert. 
Beih. 9 (1921) 85; ex Mansfeld in Fedde Repert. Beih. 
57 (1929) t. 142, nr. 558. 
Epidendrum Matthewsu has already been reduced to 
the synonymy of #4. Porpax by Ames, Hubbard & 
Schweinfurth (The Genus Epidendrum in the United 
States and Middle America (1986) 152). 
On the basis of the description of ’. 2nomus amplified 
by a floral analysis made under the supervision of Dr. 
Schlechter, it appears certain that this concept is refer- 
able to #. Porpaw Reichb.f. (1855) which is represented 
in the Ames Herbarium by a photograph with floral 
drawings from the Reichenbach Herbarium, as well as 
by numerous collections extending from Mexico to Ven- 
ezuela. Apparently this same conclusion was formerly 
reached by Kranzlin. 
There appears to be no morphological difference be- 
tween these species, the only discrepancy being that FH. 
gnomus is smaller vegetatively than the usual plants of 
It. Porpax. However, the latter concept seems to be 
very variable in size of stem and leaves, and the charac- 
terization of I. gnomus agrees well with some portions 
of typical 17. Matthewsu trom Peru. 
Epidendrum Ruizianum Steudel Nomencl. Bot. 
ed. 2, pt. 1 (1840) 558. 
E’pidendrum nutans Ruiz & Pavon Syst. Veg. (1798) 
245, non Swartz 1788. 
E’pidendrum spathaceum Lindley in Hooker Journ. 
Bot. 3 (1841) 85; Fol. Orch. Epidendrum (1853) p. 
58, no. 166. 
A photograph of the type of Mpidendrum nutans Ruiz 
& Pav. (later renamed 1. Ruizianum Steud.) shows that 
[ 241 ] 
