135. ORCHIDACEE: VANDEX. 31 
6. Cymbidium longifolium, D. Don, Prodr. Fl. Nepal. p. 36 ; 
Lindl. Gen. § Sp. Orch. p. 163; Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. vi. 
p. 13. 
Cymbidium erythreum, Lindl. in Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot. iii. (1859) p. 30. 
SzECHUEN: without locality (Pratt!); Yunnan: Mengtze, 
mountains to the south-west, at 5000 ft. (4. Henry, 11090, 
11371 ' on cliffs in forest, at 6000 ft. (A. Henry, 11371 !). 
Herb. Kew. 
Subtropical Himalaya, from Kumaon eastwards. 
7. Cymbidium pendulum, Sw. in Nov. Act. Soc. Se. Upsal. vi. 
(1799) p. 73; Lindl. Gen. Ar Sp. Orch. p. 165. 
Epidendrum pendulum, Roxb. PI. Coromand. i. p. 35, t. 44. 
Cymbidium aloifolium, Lodd. Bot. Cab. x. t. 967, excl. syn. ; Hook. f. 
Fl. Brit. Ind. vi. p. 10, excl. syn. ; Epidendrum aloifolium, Linn., non Sw. 
Curva: without locality (Potts!). Cult. sp. in Herb. Lindl., 
at Kew. 
India from Nepal eastward to Assam, and southward to 
Tenasserim and the Andaman Islands. 
This species has been much confused with C. aloifolium, Sw., 
which is limited to South-western India and Ceylon, and 
readily distinguished by the longer, acute front lobe of tie lip. 
The Chinese habitat remains doubtful. Messrs. Loddiges 
received it from China in 1790, and Potts also sent it to the 
Horticultural Society, where it flowered in 1821, a specimen 
being preserved in Lindley’s Hebarium. Besides which there 
are Chinese drawings in the collection at Kew. It may, however, 
be only a eultivated plant in China, as there are no dried specimens 
at Kew, and the collection of Chinese drawings contains some 
undoubted garden plants. 
8. Cymbidium sinense, Willd. Sp. Pl. iv. p. 111; Lodd. Bot. 
Cab. i. t. 37; Lindl. Gen. & Sp. Orch. p. 162; Lindl. in Journ. 
Linn. Koc., Bot. iii. (1859) p. 30. 
Epidendrum sinense, Andr. Bot. Rep. iii. t. 216; Bot. Mag. t. 888. 
Cymbidium fragrans, Salisb. in Trans. Hort. Soc. i. (1812) p. 293. 
Cymbidium ensifolium, Hook. f. Fl. Brit, Ind. vi. p. 13, in part. 
Cura: without locality (Slater, ex Andrews). 
Khasia Hills and Ceylon. 
This species has been confused with C. ensifolium, Sw., by 
various authors, but is easily distinguished by its mueh broader 
leaves, and larger, more uumerous and differently coloured 
