species set out by Kraenzlin in his key to sect. Cultri- 
formes (Fedde Repert. Spec. Nov. Beih. 89 (1926) 106), 
I can see none of any importance on examining the two 
type specimens. It is evident from the labels that the 
two gatherings were made in the same region and alti- 
tudinal zone. 
Polystachya bicarinata Rendle in Journ. Linn. 
Soc. Lond. Bot. 88 (1908) 236. 
Polystachya eusepala’ Kraenzlin in’ Wiss. Ergebn. 
Deutsch. Zentr.-Afr.-Exped. 1907-1908, 2 (1910) 79, 
t. LX, fig. C. 
Dissections of flowers from the type specimens of the 
above ‘‘species’” show them to be almost identical. 
There appear to be no differences, either floral or vege- 
tative, warranting their separation. 
Polystachya galeata (Swartz) Reichenbach filius in 
Walpers Ann. 6 (1863) 687. 
Polystachya Gilleti De Wildeman Not. Pl. Util. 
Congo (1904) 313. 
The type gathering of P. Gilletii De Wildem. agrees 
well with P. galeata in general features and floral strue- 
ture. The leaves are somewhat wider, the flowers are a 
little smaller, while the petals are broader. Judging from 
other species in this section and elsewhere in the genus, 
none of these differences is of specific value. It is inter- 
esting to note that Kraenzlin makes no comparison be- 
tween these species in his monograph since he places P. 
galeata in his sect. Grandiflorae and P. Gilletii in sect. 
Cultriformes. The latter section is the correct position. 
Polystachya (§. Cultriformes) virginea Swmmer- 
hayes sp. nov.; a P. Doggettu Rendle & Rolfe mento 
longiore, a P. galeata (Sw.) Reichb.f. planta siccitate 
haud nigrescente, labello vix unguiculato, ab utraque 
floribus candidis differt. 
[ 290 | 
