binations.”’ Is it conceivable that a committee of bota- 
nists would suggest deviation from the basic rule of pri- 
ority because an earlier name had not been used or because 
several new combinations might result? Naturally, most 
conservative botanists try to resist altering nomenclature 
in the cases of very large genera or in generic names which 
have been long or widely used in economic botany or hor- 
ticulture, but the genus under question is neither large 
nor of economic or horticultural importance. 
Reichenbach’s concept included two different entities. 
He listed two species in the genus, Bletilla florida from 
the New World and B. gebinae from the Old World. 
It is now recognized that Bletilla florida belongs in the 
genus Bletia. Rafinesque’s concept is concerned only 
with the true Bletilla element, an additional cause for 
taking up his name for the concept, which would have 
been obvious if those responsible for this proposal had 
any knowledge of the plants involved. 
In order to forestall absurd and unnecessary legislative 
action, we herewith make the appropriate transfers to 
the genus Jimensia: 
Jimensia formosana (Hayata) Garay & R. E. 
Schultes comb. nov. 
Bletia formosana Hayata Mat. Fl. Formos. (1911) 823. 
Bletilla formosana (Hayata) Schltr. in Fedde Rep. 10 
(1911) 256. 
Jimensia kotoensis (Hayata) Garay & R. E. 
Schultes comb. nov. 
Bletia kotoensis Hayata Mat. Fl. Formos. (1911) 325. 
Bletilla kotoensis (Hayata) Schltr. in Fedde Rep. 10 
(1911) 256. 
Jimensia morrisonicola (Hayata) Garay & R.E. 
Schultes comb. nov. 
[ 183 ] 
