variable plants regarding which it is difficult to reach a 
satisfactory basis for segregation. Indeed, I am not sure 
that the three concepts cited above should not all be re- 
ferred to Plocoglottis Copelandii Ames. When the abun- 
dant material now available is taken into account, there 
are no characters given in the original descriptions by 
which these three concepts may be separated. I have 
been unable to find characters which are constant. 
LoNopsIs UTRICULARIOIDES, A POLYMORPHIC SPECIES 
I have recently studied a number of specimens of 
Ionopsis from South America sent to the Ames Herbar- 
ium for determination. ‘These specimens raised the ques- 
tion of the proper specific name for the plant which has 
generally been named Jonopsts paniculata Lindl.of which 
the identity has been investigated with the aid of avail- 
able material. Two species, which I have not seen, from 
the Cordilleran region of South America, may belong to 
this complex. These are Jonopsis orchioides Krinzl. in 
Fedde Repert. 17 (1921) 888 and J. zebrina Kriinzl. in 
Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 7 (1920) 435. The former may 
be a synonym of J.utricularioides, but the latter, if it is 
well characterized, may prove to be distinct. 
The synonymy which follows belongs, I believe, to 
Tonopsis utricularioides, a widespread and polymorphic 
species. 
Ionopsis utricularioides (Sw. ) Lindley Coll. Bot. 
(1821) t. 389A; Gen. & Sp. Orch. PI. (1883) 194; Fol. 
Orch. Ionopsis (1852) p. 2—Reichenbach filius in Walp. 
Ann. 6 (1863) 684—Hemsley in Godman & Salvin Biol. 
Centr.-Am. Bot. 3 (1884) 290—Cogniaux in Martius FI. 
Bras. 8, pt. 6 (1904) 174—Ames in Proc. Biol. Soe. 
Wash. 17 (1904) 116; Orch. 1 (1905) 19, t. 5—Fawceett & 
Rendle FI. Jam. (1910) 125, t. 27, figs. 4-6—Schlechter 
in Fedde Repert. Beihefte 8 (1921) 165. 
[ 49 ] 
