The Costa Rican Dichaea ovatipetala differs from ty p- 
ical D.muricata in having sparingly subverruculose se- 
pals, somewhat broader petals and a minutely papillose- 
ciliate margin on the basal portion of the lip. Though I 
have been unable to examine any Jamaican specimens of 
D.muricata, a flower of that species from Guadeloupe 
shows both the sparsely verruculose sepals and the mi- 
nutely ciliate base of the lip. The breadth of the petals 
appears to be a variable character, but in no flower of D. 
muricata Which | have examined could they be called 
‘linear’, as described by Kriinzlin in his monograph of 
Dichaea (in Engler Pflanzenreich LV. 50 (Heft 88) (1928) 
87). 
The Costa Rican Dichaea similis is scarcely to be 
distinguished from D.ovatipetala save by its somewhat 
narrower petals, smooth basal margins of the lip and 
rather longer and more acuminate lateral lobules or au- 
ricles of the lip. However, I have seen one Costa Rican 
specimen ( Quiros 260 = 240) in which one petal is much 
broader than the other, with the papillose-ciliate base 
of the lip as in D.ovatipetala, but having long slender 
lateral lobes of the lip, as in D. similis. 
Another Costa Rican species, Dichaea verrucosa, has 
larger flowers than those of D.ovatipetala and D. similis, 
but is otherwise precisely similar to a combination of 
those concepts. 
In this connection it seems advisable to correct some 
statements made in the type description of Dichaea vagi- 
nata Reichb.f. ex Kriinzl. (in Engler Pflanzenreich LV. 
50 (Heft 88) (1923) 42) and thus to eliminate this species 
from the puzzling alliance of D.muricata. In his deserip- 
tion Kriinzlin (l.c.) says: ‘‘ovarium setosum, capsula bre- 
viter tamen, densissime echinata. ’’ However, a note ona 
record of the Endres collection from the Reichenbachian 
Herbarium which must be regarded as the type says: 
[ 10 | 
