2748.°’ Rafinesque proposed for Lindley’s Zygopetalum 
cochleare a new specific name under Cochleanthes — C. 
fragrans — instead of making the correct transfer. 
There is every reason to accept Cochleanthes as the 
proper name for this generic concept, even though it has 
been almost completely neglected * in orchidological lit- 
erature. Under the International Code of Botanical 
Nomenclature, the only way to avoid a change to Coch- 
leanthes would be to conserve Warscewiczella. This pro- 
cedure we are not willing to propose, since the genus is 
a small one and since none of the species involved has 
ever assumed important stature in horticulture. 
Cochleanthes PRafinesque F). Tellur. 4 (1886) 45. 
Warscewiczella Rehb.f. in Bot. Zeit. 10 (1852) 635. 
Zygopetalum sect. Cochleare Rehb.f. in Walp. Ann. 
Bot. Syst. 6 (1868) 652. 
Zygopetalum sect. Warscewiczella Rehb.f. ibid. 6 
(1868) 653. 
ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION : 
930. Cochleanthes R. (shell fl.) petalis connivens ovat. undul. 
lab. cochleato bilobo, basi crista cochleata (ut plecton plicata) cal- 
ear col. clavata, anth. 2loc., 2labiata, pollinia 4eq. caulescens, fl. 
avillaris.—Type C. fragrans R. fol. lanceol. 5nervis, pedic. Ifl. axil- 
laris. Trinidad. fl. ample fragrant white, lip purple. It is Zygopet- 
alum cochleare Lindl. b. reg. 1857, but quite a different G. from 
7. makai H. b. m. 2748, with petals secund, lip flabellate with a 
spur, anther calciform, 4 uneq. pollen.”’ 
Cochleanthes amazonica (Rchb.f. & Warsc.) R.E. 
Schultes & Garay comb. nov. 
Warscewiczella amazonica Rehb.f. & Warse. in Bonpl. 
2 (1854) 97. 
' Hoehne (in Hoehne, FI. Brasilica 12: pt. 7 (1953) 171), in refer- 
ring to ‘‘Cochleanthus Rafin.’’, has pointed out that this is the prior 
name, but, for reasons not explained, he continued to employ War- 
scewicsella, 
[ 822 | 
