in Venezuela and not specifically to the city), Venezuela, 
by Wagener and is preserved in the Reichenbach Her- 
barium on sheet No. 891. This sheet, which is labelled 
“Epid. bicornutum’’ has, pasted on a card attached to 
the sheet, three flowers from Fendler 2436, collected 
near Colonia ‘Tovar in Venezuela in 1856-1857. This 
Fendler material, representing Caularthron bilamellatum, 
has been given the number of Herb. Reichenbach 891a 
in order to distinguish it from the type or Wagener col- 
lection. There are also, pasted on the sheet with the type, 
two labels indicating that the collection was made by 
Linden in ‘‘Nouvelle Granade,’’ but since the original 
handwritten label is obviously the correct one, we must 
assume that, as so often happened, the printed Linden 
labels were glued to the sheet at a subsequent date and 
undoubtedly in error. 
An examination of the type material of Hpidendrum 
bigibberosum (Herb. Reichenbach 893, 894) and of Reich- 
enbach’s diagnostic sketches of the floral parts fails to 
uncover a single character which might serve to distin- 
guish this collection from the type of 2. bilamellatum. 
In his original description of the concept Hpidendrum 
bigibberosum, Reichenbach likewise failed to point out 
any differences. We, therefore, must reduce Mpidendrum 
bigibberosum to synonymy under Caularthron bilamella- 
tum. 
For some time, I have been undecided as to what the 
concept which has been known as Diacrium indivisum 
(Epidendrum indivisum) really represented. Bradford 
drew up a description based on one of his Trinidad col- 
lections, and this was published as Mpidendrum indivisum 
by Grisebach. It was transferred to Diacrium by Broad- 
way in 1895. Cogniaux maintained that the concept 
represented a variety of Diacrium bicornutum and made 
the necessary nomenclatural adjustment. In 1956, I pub- 
[ 96 ] 
