Nov. Gen. et Sp. 1 (1816) 840, t. 783—Lindley in Bot. 
Reg. 27 (1841) sub t. 1 (as graminifolium). 
Camaridium graminifolium Reichenbach filius in Lin- 
naea 22 (1849) 857. 
Maaillaria Matthewsu Reichenbach filius in Walpers 
Ann. 6 (1863) 589, non Lindley 1845. 
Although I have seen no material of typical Maail- 
laria Matthewsu Reichb.f., there is in the Ames Herbar- 
ium a floral analysis of this concept from the Reichenbach 
Herbarium. 
In addition, I have examined several Peruvian collee- 
tions referable to M. graminifolia and these specimens 
approximate the description and floral drawing of M. 
Matthewsu above cited, the lip of the former concept 
being extremely variable. 
Until there is available a more detailed example of 
M. Matthewsu Reichb.f., it seems advisable to relegate 
this concept to synonymy. This action is sustained by 
the fact that Lindley considered this species as originally 
forming a part of the concept recognized by him as Jso- 
chilus graminifolium. 
Maxillaria heteroclita Poeppig & Indlicher Nov. 
Gen. ac Sp. 1 (1886) 37, t. 683—Cogniaux in Martius 
Fl. Bras. 8, pt. 6 (1904) 27. 
The several drawings of the flower illustrating the 
original description of this concept appear to be a close 
match for the flower of Zygopetalum (§ Warscewiczella) 
rhombilabium C. Schweinf. which is described and illus- 
trated in Am. Orch. Soc. Bull. 12 (1944) 422. 
On the other hand, Mawillaria heterochta is described 
and shown with a distinct unifoliate pseudobulb (such as 
is typical of one group of the variable genus Maxillaria), 
whereas Zygopetalum rhombilabium lacks any pseudobulb 
and has a fan-like cluster of several leaves. As before 
[ 276 ] 
