preserved from a similar fate by breaking an opening through the 

 sides of the pot. The flowers were slightly fragrant, and of short 

 duration ; the lip when fresh appeared to be formed of the most pure 

 and highly-polished ivory. The plant in question differs decidedly 

 from S. oculata and insignis, which have both flowered here ; and in 

 foliage from a plant I possess of S. grandiflora, being much smaller, 

 more pointed and pliant in its leaves. Not, however, having seen 

 a flower of the latter, I know not exactly in what respect it differs 

 from it." 



To this last species it is indeed very closely allied ; but it appears 

 to differ from it in some points of importance. In the first place, its 

 flowers are not more than two-thirds of the size; secondly, the horns 

 of the base of the lip proceed from the middle of the margin of the 

 hypochilium, and not from the front of the margin; and thirdly, the 

 scape in S. grandiflora is shorter than the sepals, so that the flowers 

 are erect, while in S. eburnea the scape is twice as long, and pendulous. 

 Such at least are differences that are to be discovered upon comparing 

 this with Messrs. Loddiges' figure of Ceratochilus grandiflorus, and 

 with a few notes upon that species which we formerly made when 

 a blossom was communicated to us by those gentlemen in August 

 1828. We, however, should not perhaps have attached so much 

 importance to these peculiarities, if S. eburnea had not been a native 

 of Rio Janeiro, and S. grandiflora of Trinidad ; but we know that it 

 rarely happens that the same species of Orchideous plant inhabits 

 such very distant stations. 



When we originally examined this plant, we suggested to Messrs. 

 Loddiges as a name for the genus that of Ceratochilus, which was 

 accordingly adopted ; but we unfortunately did not at the time 

 advert to the existence of the same name in Dr. Blume's Observa- 

 tions upon Java Plants. The genus of the last-mentioned Botanist 

 being, however, apparently distinct, it has become necessary to adopt 

 the name of Stanhopea, which was subsequently applied to another 

 species of this genus, the Epidendrum grandiflorum of Humboldt 

 and Bonpland, by Dr. Hooker. We the more readily do this now, 

 because on a former occasion, in objecting to the reception of the 

 name Stanhopea, we suffered ourselves to be betrayed into unkind 

 expressions, which should not have been applied to any one, and 

 least of all to so amiable and excellent a man as our long-tried 

 friend the Professor of Botany at Glasgow. 



J. L. 



