Intrigued, and thinking about it - whilst looking at one of my own Aerides now in spike, I checked this out in Jay's Encyclopaedia. He has Aerides maculata, see Vanda sphathulata , and also Aerides maculata - see Aerides quinquevulnera.
As I understand the Rules , this suggests that maculata is not a valid name, and if not, maculosum would not be allowable either ( same meaning in latin as maculata - it just means "marked" - as opposed to immaculate, or unmarked ).
I take it that it's not a Vanda - it doesn't look like one, and droopy spikes are not common in that genus, I think - in fact I can't recall ever seeing one.
So Aerides, then - and thought to be a synonym of quinquevulnera. I think I currently have two or maybe three specimens of quinquevulnera in my collection, and the flowers are quite different in size and number from one plant to the next, so even on this very limited selection, the species must be pretty variable .
The essential for quinquevulnera is the five dark pink spots - that's (almost) what the name means - "five wounds" - it is a biblical reference to the cruxifiction - although I always see six not five. But one of them is there on other species, so they say ( I am sceptical) , so its five extra ones.
So if your flowers have five ( or six) dark pink spots, one on each petal, sepal etc, that could be right. If not - then maybe it's something else. You could always send the pressed flowers to a taxonomic guy, have him declare it a new species, and ask for it to be named Aerides Royleeium - there's fame and immortality for you !