_Mar.-APRIL, 1920.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 35 
confusion, for the plant agrees with A. Reinwardtii, Blume, described and 
figured two years previously (Orch. Archip. Ind., p: 28. t. 12, fig. 1), as a native 
of Java. A. setaceus, Blume, the other Javan species, which is also 
figured on the same plate, differs in its elegantly reticulated leaves and in 
floral structure. This dates from 1825 (Blume Bijidr. p. 412, fig. 14), and 
has also not escaped confusion, for Lindley referred to it a Ceylon species, 
which he figured (Bot. Reg., t. 2010), and this Blume afterwards described 
as A. regalis (Orch. Archip. Ind., p. 47, t. 19, fig. B). Lindley’s mistake 
-was repeated in Bot. Mag., t. 4123, this figure also representing the Ceylon 
plant, which is described as one of the most beautiful of all plants in the 
hue and marking of its leaves, not to be imitated by art, their colour being 
a rich velvety green, tinged with copper, and over that laid an exquisite 
golden network. It is said to be a native of damp, shady woods in Ceylon, 
Amboyna, and Java, ‘and if, as I think there can be no doubt, the 
Chrysobaphrus Roxburghii of Wallich be the same, also of Sylhet and 
Nepal.”” But the latter represents a fourth species, A. Roxburghii, Lindl., 
which was in bloom at Kew at the same time as A. Reinwardtii, though 
not having its correct name. The Amboyna plant has been referred to 
A. Reinwardtii, but its identity is doubtful, to say the very least, because 
of the golden veins said to be on the leaves. Rumphius remarks that this 
is known to the natives of Amboyna as Daun Petola, or Petola leaf, on 
account of its resemblance to the Petola, a precious silken vestment of 
many gaudy colours. Materials are wanting to decide the point, but we 
may recall that the well known Macodes Petola, Lindl., owes its specific 
name to the same character. R.A.R. 
S| THE SOPHROCATLALLIAS. & 
T is remarkable how rapidly the hybrid genus Sophrocatlzlia is growing. 
When the Orchid Stud-Book was published four only were known, but 
since then there have been over eighty additions. The majority have been 
reported in our pages as exhibited, and we now take the opportunity of 
giving a number of others. In some cases they have been recorded under 
the name of Sophro-Lzlio-Cattleya, which, however, is not in accordance 
with the Rules of Nomenclature of the Brussels Congress. These, after 
confirming the R.H.S. Rules for the nomenclature of multigeneric hybrids, 
make exceptions in the case of Brassocatlelia and Sophrocatlelia as being 
names already in use. There is also a provision that such names should be 
written as a single word, without hyphens and with only the initial capital 
{as we have always written it). The genus was established to include all 
hybrids between the three genera, Sophronitis, Cattleya, and Lelia, a 
