[ 23 ] 
PHALAENOPSIS GRANDIFLORA Zina AUREA Hort. 
PHALANOPSIS GRANDIFLORA, Lindl.: radicibus teretiusculis levibus, foliis pallide viridibus subconcoloribus, oblongis, acutis, labelli partitionibus 
posticis cuneato rhombeo ovatis, partitione mediana hastato triangula apice bicirrhosa, callo inter partitiones laterales hastato triangulo per medium longitudi- 
naliter Sutentio, antica acutiusculo nunc utrinque unide 
ALBUM MAJUS, Rumph. Amb. v 90, t . 43! (figura imminuta) ! 
M AMABILE, L.! Spec, Pl. ed. i, p. 953! Nr. 12! (II, Baronem F. v. Miller sequor in citanda editione Linne ei prima). 
=NOPSIS AMABILIS, Bl. Bijdr.., 294 ! Bl. Tabell. 44! BI. Rumphia iv., 194, f. i, tab. iv., 169! Horsf. Pl. Jav. viii. ! Rehb. f. Xenia IL, p. 5! 
OPSIS GRANDIFLORA, Lindl., Gard. Chron., 1848, p. 39, f.i. (callus rrasalttia argute angulatus, forsan Seite errore). Hook. Bot. Mag. 5184 ! 
adventitiz alboviridule. Canis humilis. Folia pauca, oblongo-ligulata, apice inaquali ‘quieras, Pedunculus multiflorus, durans, nunc 
paniculatus, floribus heterochronicis, ut pauci eodem tempore aperti sint. Sepala cuneato oblonga acuta, lateralia subdimidiata. Tepala cuneato elliptica obtusi- 
uscula, Omnia nivea, in alabastro sepala extus flavo viridula. Labellum descriptum album, flavo aspersum juxta marginem externum laciniarum lateralium 
et marginem internum baseos lacini median, atropurpureo seu fusco guttulatum ac striolatum supra callum ac basin laciniarum labelli lateralium. Columna 
trigona apice acutiuscula. Florem ingentem misit dom. Geo. Heriot, Cholmsley Park, Highgate, London, April, 1875. 
Crescit in insulis Moluccis. 1752 ab Osbeckio ad Neu Upland Jave occidentalis, unde in herbario Linnzano ! 1798 a Moluccis in hortum Calcutten- 
sem introducta ex cl. Roxburgh! Nusa Kambangan Blume! Amboyna Doleschall! Buru Molucc. Riedel ! (mis. cl. amic. Oliver !). Ex Borneo introd. 
hortulani (Borneo variety sapius bene fuscata, prope semper purpurata in labelli basi). 
VAR. AUR’ labello intense flavo picto. Malacca Straits. 
Warner Sel. Orch. Pl. II, t. 7, fide T. Moore in Williams’ Manual, sixth ed., p. 
Figura analytica. Labellum egregium floris Sanderiani. 
THER 
p has lately been a great deal of controversy respecting the nomenclature of orchids, both by those who are versed 
in the matter as well as by those who are not. No one seems to have been successful in formulating a plan on the subject 
worthy to be followed. Those who are able to perceive the difference between garden and botanical nomenclature will 
doubtless arrive at the conclusion that it is not possible to bring both into harmony, for so long as the botanist has to 
serve garden interests he will have to study the ideas as well as the tastes of amateurs. This was Lindley’s view and it is 
also mine. Of course, science ought not to stand still for the sake of amateurs; on the other hand, these should not be 
expected to follow every change in the views of scientific men, as these are often founded upon circumstances which, to an 
amateur, are unfathomable. I have never endeavoured to thrust upon amateurs such undoubtedly necessary changes as 
the merging of the genus Cattleya into Epidendrum, or Lelia and Schomburgkia into the genus Bletia. 
The amateur is often thoroughly conservative in nomenclature, and many a busy man, to use Lindley’s own 
words, is satisfied when he has learned the oldest name of a plant; he is generally glad to dispense with the nicer 
distinctions, in fact, the plant is often to him merely an object of sport. We have in the present plate a capital example 
of this very point. Lindley knew Phalaenopsis amabilis only from drawings by Rumph and Blume, and from their 
description ; he seems never to have examined Linnée’s specimen. When the first plant, introduced by Cuming from the 
Philippine Islands, flowered with Messrs. Rollisson, of Tooting, 
with Blume’s species. Later on he saw the difference between Cuming’s and Blume’s plants, but thoroughly believing he 
knew P. amabilis, Blume, he named the new species P. grandiflora. He did not notice the strong difference in the lip. 
I stated the case fully in 1862, in the Hamburger Gartenszeitung, p. 38, where I named Lindley’s P. amabilis, for 
botanical purposes, P. Aphrodite. Lindley’s P. grandiflora is Blume’s P. amabilis. I do not, however, intend to press 
my nomenclature into garden circles, and I think it impossible to persuade amateurs to accept new Draconian laws, or to 
induce them to re-christen their favourites. fH. G. Rehb. f. 
in the year 1838, Lindley considered it to be identical 
Every traveller who visits that flower paradise, the islands of the Malay Archipelago, is impressed with the wealth 
and variety of plant, insect and bird life to be met with in their untrodden forests. The islands teem with orchids, and 
loveliest among them all are the Moth Orchids, as the Phalzenopsids are popularly called. The lowland forests of Borneo 
and Java are the particular homes of the Great Moth Orchid (P. grandiflora), but the traveller seldom catches a glimpse 
of it, although so abundant. It is above, in the tree tops, in that “world of sunshine, light and air,” as Kingsley 
describes it, where the flower, the insect, the bird, and the monkey reign supreme. Below is gloomy enough, and one 
rarely sees an Orchid, and never a sun loving epiphyte such as the Phalaenopsis. All along the wooded line skirting 
