The genus Restrepia, so far as lam able to determine, 
has but one character which would entitle it to generic 
rank and that is the fact that all Restrepias have four 
pollinia instead of two. However, this character may be 
used only if all of the species of Pleurothallis having four 
pollinia are removed from that genus. Schlechter has 
proposed the genus Barbosella for some of the species 
having four pollinia. This proposition, however, does not 
settle the matter, because there are other species of 
Pleurothalliis which are known to have four pollinia and 
yet cannot be placed in Restrepia or Barbosella as these 
genera are currently restricted. An example is the anom- 
alous Pleurothallis ophiocephala Lind|l. If we allow it to 
remain in Plewrothallis, where it seems to belong, then 
we must admit the genus Pleurothallis as having either 
two or four pollinia. If it is excluded from Pleurothallis, 
it would seem to constitute a genus of its own. To admit 
Pleurothallis ophiocephala to generic rank would obligate 
one to admit other such variations to the same rank and 
hence cause unwarranted generic segregation among the 
Pleurothallideae. 
Barbosella Schlechter, as delimited by him, is a close- 
ly allied group of species having four pollinia. The group 
is very closely allied to the Restrepias of traditional us- 
age, from which it differs only in the fact that the dorsal 
sepal and the petals do not have clavellate apices. Ames 
and Schweinfurth have taken most of the valid species 
of Barbosella, which were not originally described as 
Pleurothallis, and have transferred them to that genus. 
In making these transfers they did not mention that 
Barbosella is more closely allied to Restrepia,which they 
maintained, than it is to Plewrothallis. While I agree that 
Barbosella should be placed in Pleurothallis, | would not 
agree to this reduction if Restrepia were to be retained. 
By permitting the species described as Barbosella to re- 
[ 142 ] 
