355 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass. May 8th, 1923. 
Itly dear Mr. Powell: 
I am taking the few minutes that must pass before 
dinner is ready to answer your letter of the 29th April Kfifi received 
yesterday, and to tell you about the successful arrival of the 
mailimg tubes that brought Uasdevall #273, Epidendrum subpatens and 
Elleanthus Bremesii. 
You refer to Oncidium #267, tentatively named by me 
0. confusum Reichblf, and call attention to #161 determined by Schlech- 
ter a 0. confusum. Your 161 in the Eew Set and 161 in Ames Set are two 
different species. The Eew specimen is not 0. confusum Reichb.f. The 
flowers of this number in the Ames set, from tip of lip to tip of 
upper sepal are 1.8 cm. long. In Reichenbach's type the flowers maes- 
ured similarly are 2.5 cm. long. The wings of the column in your 161 
are totally dufferent from the Reichenbach type . You also refer to 
your #177. This is not 0. cerebriferum Reichb.f. I consider that your 
#267 is nearest of all these to 0. confusum Reichb. f. I realize 
that these comments are destructive rather than constructive. But you 
may be sure that I am following up your Oncidium tangles assiduously. 
Oncidium problems are awful. 
You refer to your Oncidium 170. My sheet is num¬ 
bered #270. In the herbarium I find the note I made in your garden . 
This was for the plant numbered 164. I worked on your 270 this after¬ 
noon. It belongs to Section Aphanobulbia, and seems to be the same 
as Oncidium kymatoides Eraenzlin. This species, however, was originally 
collected by Tuerckheim in Guatemala. It belongs to the Subsection 
Miltoniastrum to whichEraenzlin only admitted thirteen species. The 
nearest thing to it besides 0. carthagiense is 0. luridum, a species 
that you do not seem to have turned up in your rambles. 
