REVIEW AND INFERENCES. 39 



ments were scattered along railroad tracks, the amuse- 

 ment of those w r ho studied them at " fresh air leisure," 

 or the prey of fanning winds which tried to scatter the 

 shame to hide it behind hedges and roadsides. The 

 whole accumulation of Reichenbach's writing was not 

 worth the articles on Catlaelia elegans and Schilleriana, 

 which the author of the Orchid Review spread before 

 us. His mixed up stuff of Bletia, Barkeria, Epiden- 

 drum, Leelia, Schomburgkia, Cattleya, was such Irish 

 stew that he did not have the courage to swallow it him- 

 self. His contributions to the orchid conference were 

 simply absurd. He may have worked wonders in or- 

 dering the nomenclature of Bulbophyllum, Eria, and 

 the like genera, wonders to some, but perhaps but trifling 

 matters to those versed in such pages of our botanic 

 literature. But to us, who are confronted every day 

 with flowers attractive and large, we come across his 

 blunders often enough to place their author where he 

 belongs. The drawings which he has forced upon our 

 orchid bibliography are a disgrace to the century. 

 And his conceit uttered with every expression he used 

 " Qu' on nous traite de meme ? " Has it ever occurred to 

 you, the subscriber of the " Reichenbachia," what 

 offensive trick of the boldest baseness it was for him to 

 undertake such publication? As a rule people want to 

 be dead before they like to have anybody mention their 

 epitaph. But "post equitem sedet atra cura," thus he 

 dreaded, and fearing to fall in the gutter of oblivion to 

 benefit solely through decay, he gathered in all the self- 

 made glory he could muster and caused the Reichen- 

 bachia to be created large enough to cover a cadaver of 

 almost any size. . Thus he reckoned, but looked out at 

 same time for the ringing sound of Bank of England 

 metal, to delight and satisfy the greedy black soul. That, 



