gatherings from an area extending from Sierra Leone to 
Uganda, leads to the conclusion that the above ‘‘species”’ 
are merely forms of one widely distributed species. This 
shows considerable variation in leaf size and shape and 
in the detailed structure of the lip; there is also a less 
marked variation in flower size. 
Unfortunately it has not been possible to examine the 
types of some of the above names and there seems little 
likelihood that such examination ever will be possible. 
These species therefore will have to be interpreted in the 
light of other gatherings from the same general areas. 
The descriptions of Angraecum Bakeri, Listrostachys 
mystacidioides and L. longissima do not include any fea- 
tures, or combination of characters, which cannot be 
found in other gatherings both from the east and from 
the west. The spur appears to be longer in relation to 
the lip than in most other specimens, but even as regards 
this character Kraenzlin’s own descriptions are somewhat 
contradictory. 
From the description the flowers in Listrostachys sub- 
JSaleifola are larger than in any other gathering, but some 
collections from the Belgian Congo (e.g. Corbisier 503) 
have flowers almost as large and are otherwise evidently 
D. bidens. 
Mystacidium Duemmerianum Kraenzl. is a puzzling 
case. The type gathering is Diimmer 4437 of which there 
are duplicates at Kew and at the British Museum. These 
specimens are certainly referable to D. bidens, the only 
remarkable feature being the consistently short inflores- 
ecences which otherwise are quite normal. Kraenzlin’s 
description, although it fits the Kew and British Museum 
material in most respects, seems to have been drawn up 
from a plant bearing considerably smaller flowers with 
shorter and broader tepals. In view of the poor state of 
preservation of the duplicates it seems probable that 
[ 99 | 
