acters. The fact that there are several differences has been 
generally overlooked. However, Lemaire erected the ge- 
nus Bothriochilus to contain one of the species. Hooker 
noted the differences in some of the species (Bot. Mag. 
107 (1882) t. 6628) and suggested that Coelia might be 
divided into two sections, commenting at the same time 
on Lemaire’s genus in the following words: *‘Bothriochi- 
lus is proposed by Lemaire, but it has no characters to 
stand upon, and indeed it is very probable that plants 
with intermediate characters will be found uniting the 
group.’ Hooker's division of the group was entirely 
superficial and overlooked the more stable characters 
which are present. 
Bentham and Hooker in the Genera Plantarum so 
described Coelia that the characters of no plant which I 
know will fit it. Part of the characters attributed to it 
were derived from Coelia triptera and part of them from 
C. macrostachya and C. bella, but in such a way as to make 
them inapplicable to the component species of the genus. 
‘Two examples of this will suffice. The lateral sepals are 
described, in part, as follows: **... basi cum pede col- 
umnae in mentum breve v. elongatum connata.’’, which 
does not apply at all to Coelia triptera, the type species. 
The column is described, in part, as follows: ‘‘Columna 
brevis, latiuscula....°°, which applies to Coelia triptera 
but to no other species. 
Attention should be called to the fact that the resem- 
blance of the species which have been referred to Coela 
is very close. There seem to be no vegetative characters 
which would assist in separating them generically. 
A tabulation of characters which are available for 
generic segregation may be useful and is given here. I 
believe that these characters are sufficient to necessitate 
the recognition of two genera. 
[ 146 | 
