Refugium Botanicum.] (June, 1869. 
TAB. 90. 
Tribe EprpENDREZ. 
Genus Errpenprum, Sw. 
E. seriatum, Lindl. Folia i. Epidendrum, No. 183. Aulizeum: pseu- 
dobulbis pyriformibus di- penta-phyllis, foliis lineari-lanceolatis acu- 
minatis, racemo seu panicula porrecto, ovariis longi-pedicellatis, 
sepalis cuneato-oblongis acutis, tepalis a basi filiformi-lineari ovatis 
acutis longioribus, labello oblongo-ligulato seu ligulato utrinque ante 
basin plicato, apice retusiusculo-emarginato seu acutiusculo, callis 
geminis in ima basi venis quinis carinis multilobo plicatis depressis 
onustis, columna apice tridentata. — FH. luteo-roseum, A. Rich, Gal. 
O. Mew. No. 32,1844! EH. seriatum, Lindl. l. ¢. 1853 (sub Amphi- 
glottio) ; Rehb. f. Orchid. Lansbergiana, No. 7 ! 
The original discoverers of this species would appear to be 
Ruiz and Pavon! We obtained a proof of this from EH. Boissier, 
Esq. It was subsequently gathered by Leibold, 1841, 1842! 
near Zacuapan in Mexico; by Galeotti! 1840, in the province of 
Oaxaca, 5000! No. 5238! Linden found it near Mirador. We: 
have also at hand good specimens from Guatemala, June, 1866, 
from Dr. Bernouilli! Our friend H. Wagener has gathered the 
same plant near Caraccas, perhaps in 1850, and it was found 
there also by the Consul von Lansberg ! 
The priority of name belongs to Achille Richard, who 
gave the following diagnosis: — “ Pseudobulbis ovoideo-ob- 
longis parvulis, caule 38—4-phyllo, floribus parvulis luteo- 
roseis paniculatis, labello albido-violaceo ovali-obtuso emar- 
ginato 5-nervis glanduloso.” Dr. Lindley having obtained a 
garden specimen from J. Bateman, Esq., was so unfortunate as: 
to place it in a wrong section, as well as to speak of the lip as 
being linear, an error which arose from his specimen not being 
well pressed. Yet Dr. Lindley has well described the inflo- 
rescence and the flower, when Achille Richard had given such a 
diagnosis “that Cidipus himself would not have guessed the 
plant,” speaking even from glandule, where there are none. 
According to our principles we have preferred Lindley’s name. 
We are quite disposed to leave to Achille Richard the priority 
for all species not described later by Lindley or by ourselves, and 
we possess now types of nearly all his species. But we cannot 
feel disposed to encourage the suppression of names introduced 
later, where it is impossible to make out the species originally 
intended. It is quite a different thing with names given by older 
authors at a period when accuracy was not believed necessary. 
In Achille Richard’s time the models given by some grand 
