lanceolate) and complicate-acute (not acuminate). The 
lip is oblong-obovate (not oblong), broadly rounded and 
lightly retuse (not obtuse), and the sides of the lower 
portion are erect and auriculiform; the dise lacks the 
three elevated lines which are described. 
Maxillaria rufescens Lindley in Bot. Reg. 21 
(1835) sub t. 1802; 22 (1836) t. 1848—Reichenbach fil- 
ius in Saunders Refug. Bot. 2 (1870) t. 79 (var. flavida) ; 
2 (1882) t. 18383—Cogniaux in Martius FI. Bras. 3, pt. 6 
(1904) 12. 
Maaillaria Abelei Schlechter in Fedde Repert. Beih. 
9 (1921) 101; ex Mansfeld in Fedde Repert. Beih. 57 
(1929) t. 125, nr. 488. 
After careful consideration, it appears certain that 
Maeillaria Abelei should be included in the extremely 
variable and widespread species, M. rufescens. There are 
no morphological differences to distinguish the former 
concept, the only apparent discrepancies being in size. 
M. Abeleiis a larger plant than the average specimen of 
M. rufescens, the leat being often somewhat larger (es- 
pecially broader) and the floral segments a little longer 
than any attributed to or observed in the latter species. 
Therefore, considering that the sepals of various forms 
of M. rufescens range from 0.8 to 2 em. in length, it 
seems scarcely advisable to recognize as distinct the con- 
cept M. Abelei in which the sepals are designated as 
about 2.4 em. in length. 
In arecently examined Peruvian collection of M. ru- 
Jescens (G@. Klug 10118), the larger leaf is about 28.5 
em. long and 4.8 cm. wide (as compared with a maximum 
of 23 cm. long and 4.5 em. wide in M. Abelei); the lat- 
eral sepals are about 2.4 em. long (as in M. Abelei) and 
9.5mm. wide; the petals are about 2.3 em. long (longer 
than in M. Abele); the lip, which is slightly larger than 
[ 287 ] 
