OAKES AMES.director. 
BOTANIC CARDEN OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. U.S.A. 
June 16th, 1922. 
My dear Mr. Powell: 
I have just been studying the Central 
American Epidendrums in the alliance of your 112 ( hpiden - 
drum Roussosuae Cohltr.j. In the details of the flower 
your speciiuens~seera to be a counterpart of K* laterale Eolfa. 
a Costa Rican species. Rolfs described slightly larger 
flowers, but his sketches and the material he worked with, 
resemble E. Kousseau&e so closely that one would be- treading 
on dangerous ground who attempted to recognise two species. 
As Sohleohter did not incluae E. laterale Rolfe in his list 
of Central American orchids, perhaps "he"did not know of it. 
for your consideration I enclose a tracing of a flower of 
B* laterale made from a sketch of Rolfe’s type specimen. The 
habit of the type is very similar to that of your 112. 
There is one very delicate point for con¬ 
sideration at this point. Rolfe in hie original publication 
of 3. laterale hardly described the species with suffiegilRt 
attention to botanical demands. Although ho referred to the 
alliance to which his spe-cios belonged, mentioning B. Stam/ 
forclianum, and made remarks about the nature and color of 
the flowers, he made no mention of the perianth organs. Sven 
in 1920 when he gave more details, he hardly made up for his. 
former slipshod treatment. The question is: Roes the Rolfean 
laterale of 1912 antiduto botanically the E. Rouseauae 
pu oi i she d Try Sohleohter in 1918? I am inclined to strain a 
point in favor of Rolfe, but whether or not impartial sys¬ 
tematise will follow me* is a question for which I have not 
the answer. Rolfe’s name is not strictly a aomen nudum , be¬ 
cause he did give a charsotorination that would help in plac¬ 
ing it. His typo is in good condition. He used the name twice 
prior to 1918, and separated his species dearly from J|. 
Gtamfordi&num its nearest and only ally i 
with these notes before you I ask that 
you draw your own conclusions* 
I m t indeed, sorry, that my recent let¬ 
ters seem to stress the uncertainties of systematic botany! 
Perhaps they remind me of one of your early letters to me 
in which you implied that because the types of Central Amer¬ 
ican orchids were in the botanical treasuries of Europe , our 
American botanists must of necessity yield to the superior 
opportunities of their European colleagues, from my recent 
letters it would seem that the location of types is but a 
step toward finality in botanical work. Finality? What a 
word to use. whefc classification is so largely based on 
