134 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [Sept.-Oct., 1920. 
natural size and in colour, by Moggridge (Fl. Mentone, t. 16), together with 
Serapias cordigera, in the fowers of which it was found with the pollinia of 
S. lingua attached to its head, so that this insect may be the agent by which 
S. ambigua, Rouy, the natural hybrid between the two species, is produced. 
Camus records five other natural hybrids of Serapias, but not one between 
S. cordigera and S. longipetala. He also records eleven natural hybrids 
between Serapias and Orchis, and the above observations might suggest 
that after visiting the Orchis flowers by day the bees retire to the Serapias 
flowers by night. At all events Moggridge states that all the species of 
Serapias are absolutely sterile when unvisited by insects. It is clear that 
we have not yet got to the end of this very interesting question, for Delpino, 
according to Mueller, states that Serapias longipetala is visited by bees in 
the west of Liguria, though no further details are given. R.A.R. 
DENDROBIUM PRIMULARDII.—This name has been given to distinguish a 
supposed natural hybrid Dendrobium which has long been known, though, 
in face of a little uncertainty about its origin, no name had been proposed 
for it. It flowered in the collection of Captain W. Horridge, Bury, in 
March, 1916, and when noting a specimen sent to us (O.R., xxiv. p. 96) 
we mentioned its probable identity with a Dendrobium which flowered 
with Messrs. Cypher & Sons, in March, 1899. _ _1n April of the present year 
it was exhibited by Capt. Horridge at a meeting of the Manchester Orchid 
Society, and received an Award of Merit, but as it was still without a name, 
that of D. venustum was given in the report. Unfortunately, this name: 
had already been used for a Siamese species, D. venustumr, Teijsm. & Binn- 
The Gardeners’ Chronicle suggests a comparison with D. cucullatum, and 
remarks (1920, i. p. 308) that in any case the name gives an instance of the 
inadvisability of giving scientific names to hybrids. We do not accept the 
conclusion, for the mistake is of a different kind. In any case the plant is 
not D. cucullatum, R.Br. (Bot. Reg., t. 548), which has small flowers, 
borne at the same time as the leaves, and has since been regarded as an 
undeveloped form of D. Pierardii. It was so regarded by Lindley when 
describing D. primulinum, though he remarked, “ We possess no authentic 
specimen; the barbarous specimen in the Botanical Register offers no 
assistance in a critical enquiry.” Lindley inferred that D. primulinum was 
a native of Sikkim, and spoke of Dr. Hooker’s dried specimens gathered in 
the hot valleys there. King and Pantling, however, speak of it as no longer 
occurring there, and we have shown that Dr. Hooker’s specimens belong to 
D. Pierardii (O.R., x. p. 42). Captain Horridge’s plant came from Burma, 
where the two species may grow together, for Dr. Kerr collected both at 
Doi Sutep, in the Chengmai district of Burma, though whether actually 
intermixed is not recorded.—R.A.R. 
