May 3, 1923 
355 Commonweqlth Avonue, loston Mass, 
My dear Mr. Powell: 
A mailing tube arrived this forenoon. As speci¬ 
mens are on the way to amplify the unnamed species I shall not re¬ 
port on them in this letter, The Stelis flowers are certainly wel¬ 
come. You cannot send too many of these. Put this time you have 
mixed things up a bit as your number & 234 sent as Stelis praemorss 
Schltr. proves to be Stelis A'illiansii Ames (ef. Orchidaceae VII). 
Here by the way we must refer Stelis c&llina Schltr as a syntoym. 
Your 284 unnmaed proves to be stelis crescenticola Schltr. (synonyms 
of this are Stelis Isthmi Schltr. and S. praerporsa Soltr.) I have 
been working on these species recently and I am about ready to clear 
5 
matters for you in Schedulae Orchidianae $ which is nearly ready for 
the printer. vVhen you receive this number of the work you will find 
things a bit simplified for you in your garden work. 
Sched. Orch. 4 comes from the press day after to-morrow. Some 
sixty pages of heavy stuff. This shoulu carry delight to Costa Rica 
where I und rstarui Lankestor is recovering from a fall sustained 
while climbing for orchids. 
I doubt the correctness of Schlechter's determination of your 
177. He named it Oncidium cerebriferum Reichb.f. This species in 
Reichenbach* s Herbarium consists of a single flowerI Reichenoaoh did 
not describe foliage, in fact he did not have any, although in 
Orch. Powell. I note that Schlechter separates 0. panamenses Schltr. 
in part from 0. cerebriferum through differences in the pseudobulbs. 
AH I hace of 0. cerebriferum is a tracing ogf the type flower and 
an enlarged drawing made by Mrs. i'anes from the type. From these 
records it would seem that the upper sepal is much shorter in re- 
