494 ORCHIDACEARUM GENERA AND SPECIES. 



the very few words of introduction to be found on the inside of the 

 cjver of the first fascicle. Vol. i. contains " Cypripediece and 

 OphnjclecB" ; vol. ii. '^ DendrobiecB and the Bulbophyllmea" ; vol. iii. 

 "the Monopodials " ; while "the distribution of the remaining 

 groups among the vols. iv. to vi. cannot be fixed with absolute 

 certainty." 



The book begins very abruptly. Presumably an introduction 

 will be at some time forthcoming, and will perhaps include an 

 ordinal diagnosis. But the bare expression " Diandr^ " needs 

 elaboration or explanation, especially as the other sub-order " Mo- 

 nandfjB Orchidaceae " is characterized by nearly a page of debcrip- 

 tion. The omission was probably an oversight, and is, we regret 

 to find, only one of numerous instances, which are evidences of in- 

 sufficient care, due perhaps to a too hasty publication. Thus, in 

 the clavis to the first section of Cypripediwn, [Calceolaria), the third 

 species is C. Henryi Francliet ; this turns out to be an error for 

 C. IJeiinji Eolfe, which is quoted on p. 17 from the Kew Bulletin 

 of 1592! The references as a whole are very bad: it is hardly 

 possible to look at any one page without finding something wrong, 

 inappropriate, or inconsistent. Cijpripedmm in the list of syno- 

 nyms which follows the account of a species is written in full, or 

 variously contracted to Cypriped., Cyprip., Cypr., Cyp., or C. We 

 thiuk tlie reference to the accepted specific name should imme- 

 diately follow the author's name before the diagnosis. If, how- 

 ever, it is placed after the latter, it should be typographically 

 distinguished from the synonyms ; by putting everything in italics, 

 as Dr. Kraenzlin does, nothing is distinct. The arrangement and 

 punctuation of the synonymy, as well as the actual citations, leave 

 much to be desired. The most lately published pages afford 

 similar instances. Thus, on p. 185, in the clavis of the Macro- 

 ceratitcB section of Habenaria, species 10 is " H. Melvillei Rchb. 

 f." ; on the next page it reads, " H. Melvillei Ridley." The correct 

 citation is H. Melvillii Eidley, while the collector was H. C. Dent, 

 not " Deus," and the specimen was from herb. Cosmo Melvill, not 

 " Correo Melville." In the diagnosis the plant is described as 

 " foliis paucis (?) " " spica ? — " ; but Mr. Eidley's original descrip- 

 tion in this Journal is not doubtful on these points : he says " folia 

 duo," " flores duo magni," and Dr. Kraenzlin might have seen the 

 type at the British Museum, where he is always a welcome visitor. 

 On p. 188 H. Priniilei B. L. Eobinson is kept up as a distinct 

 species, but, singularly enough, appears again with the same 

 reference as a synonym of H. macrocenititis on p. 192. As the 

 species was described from a single number of Pringle's Mexican 

 plants, and the number is cited under the species with no sugges- 

 tion that it is only " in part," it is difficult to see that this can be 

 anything but a blunder. 



We fear these symptoms of hasty production are not confined 

 to the literary side of the work. Eeviewers in the Gardeners' 

 Chronicle and the Orchid Review have shown, and with good reason, 

 that the views taken of the species of Cypriprdium and their 

 affinities are open to criticism. As regards geneiic distinctions. 



