part of the type which had striate perianth parts, 
hence the name would not apply well to C. maculata. 
2. The name is well established in botanical literature 
and there has been little or no confusion in its appli- 
‘ation. 
3. The type sheet bears a specimen of C. striata and 
the description applies to that specimen, in major 
part. 
4. To take up another name for the plant would cause 
confusion and serve no useful purpose. 
It is suggested, therefore, that the use of the name 
C. striata Lindl. be continued in the traditional sense. 
Toward this end it is proposed that the specimen on the 
left side of Lindley’s type sheet be considered as the type 
and that the other specimens and the sketch on the sheet 
be disregarded in the typification of the species. 
