species of Dichaea^ wliicli prove to be D. histriOy Eeichb. f., and 

 /). brachypoda, Reiclib, f , Tlie genus is very rarely seen in cultiva- 

 tion, and the identification of the plants has revealed a good deal 

 of confusion which it is desirable to clear up. 



Dichaea histrig, Reichb. f., was primarily based on a drawing 

 by Lindley of a plant which flowered in the garden of the 

 Horticultural Society at Chiswick in October, 1856, and which is 

 Said to have been sent from Mexico by Botteri. Lindley only 

 made an enlarged sketch of the pedicel, lip and column, on a sheet 

 containing a partly-coloured copy of an unnamed Brazilian draw- 

 ing by Descourtilz, but he recorded that Botteri's plant was 

 identical with the latter in the leaves and in the colour and the 

 form of its parts. On another sheet in Lindley's HerBarium is a 

 dried specimen collected at Jalapilla, Mexico," in October, 1854, 

 by Botteri (n. 513), and with it a sketch of a flower from '* Mexico, 

 Graham,'' and these Lindley has labelled '^^ Dichaea echinocarpay^ 

 but the determination must have arisen from a confusion, for 

 D, echinocarpa was primarily based on the Jamaican Epidendrum 

 echinocarpinn, which is quite distinct. When Reichenbach 

 described D. histrio, he remarked that it was identical with a plant 

 that passed in commerce under the name of Pachyphyllum pro- 

 cumhenSy which was a true Dichaea, This determination enables 

 another doubtful plant to be cleared up, for this plant, though 

 elsewhere recorded, has not been described, and has remained as 

 an unknown PachyphylluTn down to the present. It may be 

 added that Lindley's determination of Botteri's plant was accepted 

 by Hemsley, who further overlooked D. histrio, and that the 

 habitat of the latter is recorded in the Index Kewensis as 



<£ 



Venezuela." 



The identity of Descourtilz's Brazilian drawing remains some- 

 what doubtful, but it apparently agrees with Brazilian specimens 

 of Dichaea Tnuricata, LindL, also with LiraodoruTn penduluTn^ 

 Aubl., which Lindley wrongly included under his D. echinocarpa^ 

 a mistake which doubtless led Cogniaux to supersede D. echino- 

 carpa instead of 7>. miiricata^ LindL, by the new name of D. 

 pendula^ Cogn. D. histrioj Eeichb. f,, is nearly allied to D. 

 muricata, but has invariably smaller, more closely arranged, 

 leaves than the Brazilian plant. 



The following is the revised synonymy of the species : — 

 Dichaea histrio, Reichb. f. in Nederl. Kruidk. Arch. iv. (1859), 



p. 330, ■ D. echinocarpa, Lindl. Gen. & Sp. Orch. (1833), p. 208, 

 m part; Hemsl. Biol. Centr. Amer, iii. p. 268, in part, Pachy- 

 phyllum procumbens, Lodd. Orch. (1844), p. 39; Loud. Hort. 



Brit. Suppl. 3, p. 601; Reichb. f. in [N'ederl. Kruidk. Arch. 

 iv. p. 329. 



Dichaea hTachypoday Reichb. f., Beitr. Orch. Centr. Amer. 

 (1866), p. 78, was based on a specimen collected at San Migu'el, 

 Costa Rica, by Wendland, in May, 1857, the collector describing 

 the flowers as light green with reddish spots. The species was 

 * said to be allied to Z?. graminoides, LindL (Isochilus graminoides, 

 Hook. Exot. FL iii. t. 196), and the plant sent by Mr. Lankester 

 agrees so well with the description as to leave little doubt as to its 

 identity. 



