NEW OR NOTEWORTHY ORCHIDS 
the leaves, sometimes subequaling them or even exceeded 
by them. This character of the relatively short inflorescence 
is the one chiefly relied on to separate P. Brenesii from P. 
maculata; but it is a variable character, even in the same 
specimen. 
Again the form of the leaf of P. Brenesii is taken as a 
diagnostic character, but the leaf appears to be identical 
with that of authentic Colombian and Mexican specimens 
of P. maculata. 
The lip of the Costa Rican material (and of P. Brenesii) 
seems to be often a little larger than in the Colombian form 
of P. maculata and to have a rather more truncate apex. 
But otherwise the flowers are practically identical. 
It seems to us to be unwise to recognize P. Brenesii as 
a distinct species. 
Ponthieva racemosa (Walt.) Mohr in Contrib. U. S. 
Nat. Herb. 6 (1901) 460. Arethusa racemosa Walt. FI. 
Carol (1788) 222. Neottia glandulosa Sims Bot. Mag. 21 
(1805) t. 842. Ponthieva glandulosa R. Br. in Ait. Hort. 
Kew. ed. 2 (1813) 5: 200. P. rostrata Lindl. in Ann. & 
Mag. Nat. Hist. 15 (1845) 385. P. guatemalensis Reichb. f. 
Beitr. Orch. Centr. Am. (1866) 63. P. costaricensis Schltr. 
in Fedde Report. Beihefte 19 (1923) 84. 
A Ponthieva from Florida— A. A. Eaton 1190 —was com¬ 
pared and found to agree with Arethusa racemosa Walt. 
Furthermore, it is apparently identical with Neottia glan¬ 
dulosa (I.C.), as interpreted by Fawcett & Rendle (FI. Jam. 
1 (1910) 37). 
The North American and West Indian plant thus be¬ 
comes P. racemosa. 
P. rostrata, represented in our herbarium by records 
from the type in the Bindley Herbarium at Kew, cannot 
reasonably be separated from the widespread P. racemosa, 
its only point of divergence being that its lip appears to be 
more shortly unguiculate than commonly in the latter plant. 
This reduction was made by Grisebach (FI. Br. W. Ind. 
(1864) 638). 
14 
