no mention of such a character in the lip of 8. dichotoma. 
Certainly no definite lobing is shown in the lip of the 
plants which are reasonably identified with 8. dichotoma, 
although the plicated margin of the lips of both species 
frequently make the outline appear somewhat 3-lobed. 
It is significant that a flower of a specimen doubtless 
referable to S. dichotoma (with a much branched inflores- 
cence) appears to be nearly identical with a flower of the 
isotype of S. Mandoniz. 
Sobralia scopulorum Reichenbach filius Xen. 
Orch. 2 (1873) 176, t. 175, fig. II, 2-3. 
Sobralia alstroemerioides Schlechter in Fedde Repert. 
Beihefte 9 (1921) 43; 57 (1929) t. 102, Nr. 398. 
From a careful study of the descriptions of the two 
species illustrated by floral analyses, there seems to be 
no doubt that they are conspecific and that the collection 
attributed by Kriinzlin (in Weberbauer Pflanzenw. Pe- 
ruv. And. (1911) 239) to S.scopulorum was correctly in- 
terpreted. In fact the difference in the structure of the 
lips, which is relied upon for the separation of the two 
concepts, appears to be inconsequential. The flowers are 
practically identical in appearance. 
The only significant difference to be noted is that the 
stem of S.scopulorum is said to be ‘‘spithamaeus’’ (about 
17.7 cm. high) while that of S.alstroemerioides Schltr. is 
described as ‘‘c. metralis’’ (about 100 em. high), but in 
Sobralia the height of the flowering stem is very variable. 
Sobralia undatocarinata C. Schweinfurth sp. nov. 
Herba robusta, terrestris vel epiphytica. Caulis elatus, 
inferne vaginis tubularibus et superne foliis ornatus. Folia 
elliptico-lanceolata, valde acuminata. Flores e bracteis 
erectis imbricantibus nonnullis erumpentes. Sepala sim- 
ilia, lanceolato- vel elliptico-oblonga. Petala sepalis sim- 
[ 197 ] 
