NEW OR NOTEWORTHY ORCHIDS 
Sect. Euepidendrum. The type specimen in Lindley’s Her¬ 
barium (no. 50 of Reichenbach’s citation) is in excellent 
condition. It is a tall, leafy species with imbricating bracts 
subtending the inflorescence. If there were any doubt as 
to what Reichenbach understood to be Epidendrum affine, 
this doubt would be removed by a specimen in the Gray 
Herbarium (Skinner, Guatemala) which is a duplicate of 
the type collection with the name written in Reichenbach’s 
handwriting. Reichenbach in his description compared E. 
affine to E. macrobotryum Lindl., a species with much the 
same aspect, but with denser racemes. 
Guatemala, Skinner. 
Epidendrum ionophlebium Eeichb. f. Beitr. Orch. 
Centr. Am. (1866) 103. 
Epidendrum Hoffmannii Schltr. in Fedde Repert. 16 
(1920) 444. 
Reichenbach drew his description of Epidendrum iono¬ 
phlebium from a specimen collected by Dr. Carl Hoffmann 
near Curidabad, Costa Rica, in May 1857. The type sug¬ 
gests E. radiatum Lindl., from which it differs in the outline 
of the labellum and in the structure of the column. Dr. 
Schlechter, in 1920, published Epidendrum Hoffmannii. 
The type of the species was collected by C. Hoffmann (no. 
570) near Curidabad in Costa Rica in May 1857. From 
my records of the types of these two species it would seem 
that they are hardly distinct. The labellum of E. Hoffmannii 
is perhaps a little narrower than that of E. ionophlebium, 
and more acuminate, but these differences are not greater 
than one would expect in flowers of a species which belongs 
in the same alliance with the extremely Yariahle Epidendrum 
radiatum Lindl. Furthermore, the type specimens of both 
species were collected in the same place, in the same month 
and year, by the same collector. It would seem that Schlech¬ 
ter overlooked E. ionophlebium when he described E. Hoff¬ 
mannii, as in his citation of allied species he mentions 
only E. pachycarpum Schltr. which is not so much like the 
type as is E. ionophlebium. 
14 
