cal course to follow to continue to select the few sound 
grains from the overwhelming amount of chaff in the 
Rafinesque technical botanical papers, even if, occasion- 
ally, some more or less universally used generic or speci- 
fic name might fall before those proposed by Rafinesque 
at earlier dates. ”’ 
No greater precision could be desired than that which 
we find in Rafinesque’s description of Caularthron as a 
new genus. He not only published a very adequate de- 
scription which makes definite references to key morpho- 
logical characters separating the concept from Lpiden- 
drum, but, in a day when few botanists even mentioned 
what we now call types, he named the concept on which 
he was basing Cauwlarthron by citing Hooker’s Epiden- 
drum bicornutum and referring to its place of publication. 
The later name for this same generic concept, Diacrium, 
was likewise based on H’pidendrum bicornutum. The fact 
that, in second place under his generic description, 
Rafinesque made the new name Caularthron umbellatum, 
citing as basis for it Mpidendrum stenopetalum Hook., 
does not militate against the wisdom or the necessity of 
accepting as valid his generic name, especially so since 
his generic description is obviously based on Kpidendrum 
bicornutum and not on the very distinet 22. stenopetalum. 
Caularthron Rafinesque F 1. Tellur. 2 (1836 [1837] ) 
40, pro parte. 
E’pidendrum Linnaeus sect. Diacrium Lindley in 
Hooker Journ. Bot. 3 (1841) 81; Bot. Reg. 81 (1845) 
Mise. 23; Fol. Orch. (1853) Epidendrum 8; Reichen- 
bach fil. in Walpers Ann. Bot. 6 (1862) 345. 
Miacrium (Lind).) Bentham in Journ. Linn. Soe. 18 
(1881) 812; Bentham & Hooker fil. Gen. Plant. 3 
(1883) 526; Hemsley Biol. Centr.-Am. Bot. 3 (1883) 
221; Warner & Williams, Orch. Alb. 4 (1885) t. 157; 
[ 80 | 
