^ 



January i8, 1893.] 



Garden and Forest. 



29 



different types of form belonging to the same genus, just 

 as one finds in many other genera, as, for example, in Rho- 

 dodendron, Lilium, Erica, Gentiana, Pelargonium, etc." 



Viewing the Urceocharis from this standpoint, we are, I 

 think, forced to the conclusion that Urceolina and Eucharis 

 belong to one and the same genus. The diagnosis of the 

 two as set forth by botanists, including Mr. Baker, shows 

 that there is very little difference between them ; far less 



He follows Dr. Masters in designating these hybrids by 

 compounding for them the names of the two parents, such 

 as Phaio-calanthe, Laelio-cattleya, Sophro-cattleya, Zygo- 

 colax, etc. No one acquainted with Laelias and Cattleyas 

 would object to their being united to form one genus, and 

 Sophronitis might, with equal reason, be included with 

 them, these three genera being, confessedly, very closely 

 allied. Calanthe Veitchii was a supposed bigeneric hybrid 



Salix balsamifera. — See page 28. 



than we find between, say, some of the species of Cyrtan- 

 thus, Narcissus or Hippeastrum. Urceolina itself, as now 

 constituted, is made up of three species, one of which is 

 almost everywhere known as Pentlandia miniata. 



The "bigeneric" hybrids already recorded are very few, 

 most of them being Orchids. Mr. Rolfe has dealt with the 

 Orchids in a paper which he read before the Linnsean So- 

 ciety in 1887, afterward published in the society's journal. 



until Bentham showed that Calanthe vestita and Limatodes 

 rosea, its parents, not only belonged to the same genus, 

 but were closely allied species. Phajus and Calanthe are 

 very near allies, if we compare such species as Phajus ve- 

 ratrifolius with Calanthe masuca, etc., the botanists' 

 opinion, notwithstanding. 



Philageria Veitchii, the offspring of Philesia and Lapa- 

 geria, only proves what might easily have been admitted 



