The only significant difference between Cranichis 
guatemalensis Schltr. (exemplified by type material) and 
C. diphylla Sw. (represented by authentic material) con- 
sists of slight but variable discrepancies in the form of 
the lip. C.diphylla has a suborbicular lip and is described 
by Fawcett and Rendle as ‘‘sessile, roundish in outline’’, 
while the lip of C. gwatemalensis is very broadly ovate and 
is described as shortly unguiculate and ovate-elliptie. 
However, Cogniaux in Urban Symbolae Antillanae de- 
scribes the lip of C. diphylla as ovate. And moreover, a 
large series of collections in the Ames Herbarium (identi- 
tied as C. guatemalensis) indicates that this supposed 
difference is produced largely by varying degrees of ex- 
pansion of the concave disc. Although the lip of the type 
of C.guatemalensis is unmistakably very shortly clawed 
and auriculate, this character appears to be variable and 
often obscure. It follows, therefore, that the two specific 
concepts are inseparable. 
It appears reasonably certainthat Cranichis nigrescens 
Schltr. must be regarded as a synonym of C. diphylla 
Sw., but is claimed to be distinct by reason of a pair of 
impressed-punctate cushions at the base of the ovate lip. 
However, the lip of C. diphylla is described by Fawcett 
and Rendle as having ‘‘2 lateral folds near the base’’. 
Moreover, in specimens of C.diphylla and C. guatemalen- 
sis in the Ames Herbarium, such folds with irregular 
raised projections are often present. Without examining 
the type of C. nigrescens, however, a positive reduction 
is somewhat questionable. 
The Colombian C. ovatilabia Schltr. should be regard- 
ed as synonymous with C.diphylla, as is shown by a draw- 
ing of the type made under the supervision of Dr. 
Schlechter. 
Cranichis Alfred Schltr. from Costa Rica seems to 
be indistinguishable from C. diphylla,since its ovate short- 
[ 34 | 
