The group 1 comprehends the species of the sub-genus Parviflorae (Lindley) Withner 1990, putting aside two species (Laelia harpophylla and Laelia kautskyi) that stay excluded, while Laelia brevicaulis, in general considered as very close related to the two precedents, remains. However, those three species are very similar between them and very different from the other species of the sub-genus Parviflorae; On the other hand, it could have a mistake in the analyzed specimen of Laelia brevicaulis. In fact, Laelia cowani Rolfe is considered (Withner, 1990, Zappi, 1995) as a synonym of Laelia brevicaulis, however, as a matter of fact, this name is a synonym of Laelia crispata; it could have been a misunderstanding with the specimen analyzed by van den Berg et al. (C 208-Machado sn) and it could have been, in fact, a specimen of Laelia crispata that would explaine his opinion concerning the proximity of the last species in the phylogenetic tree presented. A deepened study of the taxon Laelia brevicaulis é is, therefore, necessary and, meanwhile, we prefer to adopt a conservative position and re-group the three species; Laelia brevicaulis, Laelia harpophylla and Laelia kautskyi in the group three which coincides with the section Harpophyllae Withner 1990. This reserve done, the results obtained by van den Berg et al. confirm that the sub-genus Parviflorae, removed from the section Harpophyllae, forms a homogenous group, clearly distinct from the other species of Laelia.

The group two comprehends the species of Laelia from the sections Crispae Pftizer 1889 (or section Cattleyodes Schlechter 1917) and Hadrolaelia Schlecther 1917, the uniflora species of Sophronitis, as well Cattleya máxima. As recognized by the authors themselves, the event of this last species is enough unexpected to deserve an analysis of verification. As them, we think it is more prudent to wait the complementary results before pronouncing about its status. Regardless of the results, the group forms another entity clearly delimitated. Actually, under the morphological point of view, Sophronitis coccinea, Sophronitis brevipedunculata (firstly described as a variety of Sophronitis wittigiana), Sophronitis mantiqueirae and Sophronitis wittigiana, all of them presenting an uniflora (rarely bifloral) inflorescence without sheath, are closer to the species of the section Hadrolaelia than the Sophronitis cernua, which inflorescence bears many small flowers. It seems important to remember that, concerning this subject, Porto and Brade had, since 1935, pointed out that the two groups of Sophronitis present biggest morphological differences: this brought them to create the genus Eunannos to place the uniflora species (Porto & Brade, 1935). The phylogenetic tree established by van den Berg et al. (op. cit.) seems, certainly, show that this sub-group of Sophronitis is paraphyletic, however, on the other hand, this part of the tree presents just a weak reliably.

The group 4 comprehends just one species, Sophronitis cernua. This species have a multiflora inflorescence that distinguishes it from the other species of Sophronitis placed in the group 2. As it is also the type species of the genus Sophronitis, the group 4 should be placed in this genus. It would be very interesting to know which would be the place of Sophronitis pterocarpa, another multifora species of the genus.

Finally, Laelia lundii (group 5) occupies, in the more parsimonious tree presented, an isolated position, according to Withner's conception (op.cit.) who put this species inside a sub-genus specially created to it, Microlaelia (Schlechter) Withner 1990. In fact, regarding its morphological characteristics (see §2 bellow) as well the ecological ones (with the center of the distribution area located in the north-east of São Paulo and disjoints of those from the other groups), this species is considered, since long time ago, as an aberration inside the genus Laelia.

In his discussion, van den Berg and his co-authors show that the alternative solution to the integration of Brazilian species of Laelia inside the genus Sophronitis would be to limit, on the contrary, this genus into 3 species, to separate Laelia lundii and to ressurect the genus Hoffmannseggella to put inside it the other Brazilian species of Laelia and the other species of Sophronitis. However, they consider that the first solution would be preferable because, according to them, there is no a great morphological difference inside the studied group. Quite the contrary, as showed by all precedent studies and as specified in this one, the included species present remarkable differences in their morphological characters as well in their ecological aspect. Besides, in the light of the commentaries that have just been done, it seems to us more adequate to admit that the results obtained by van den Berg et al. reinforce the positions adopted by the botanists above mentioned and to carry on with their work in the delimitation of the autonomy entities.

So, we propose here to consider every one of those groups as an own genus, to include the group 1 to the genus Hoffmannseggella Jones and to create three new genus to organize the species of the groups 2, 3 e 5 (the group 4 included in the genus Sophronitis ): the subgenus Microlaelia (group 5) is brought the category of genus; The section Harpophylla (group 3) is transferred to the genus named in honor of Fritiz Dungs; the three ensembles which form the group 2 are transferred to a last genus which name is taken from the section Hadrolaelia. This entity re-groups, in fact, epiphyte plants relatively close, even though they present particularities that allow to divide them into many sections as showed bellow (also see the note (3).