Nov.-Dec., 1920] THE ORCHID: REVIEW. 165 
relate to the same thing. In disentangling the confusion we applied the 
term latifolia in its original sense. Mr. Druce, in alluding to our analysis, 
remarks: “An extraordinary fallacy underlies these statements. The 
latifolia of Linnzeus (if a species at all) in a restricted sense must be based 
-upon its description not on its synonyms.” But let us remind him that 
description fails when drawn from two or three different plants. Whenever 
_ an applied name is found to refer to more than one species, and amendment 
becomes necessary, the only permissible course is to apply the old name in 
its original sense. A confusion being admitted, the problem is to disen- 
tangle it, and the difficulty in the case of a Linnean name is that there is no 
earlier binomial system. One may trace the plant in dispute back to 
Gerarde (1597), and find the spotted and unspotted species figured side by 
side, with three British localities, and Mr. Druce asks, ‘Is the figure 
cited that of a British plant?’’ Does it really matter? Whatever O. 
latifolia may be, no one supposes it to be exclusively British. He says 
““Gerarde not only borrowed the figure, but the description.” As to the 
description, we entirely dissent. Gerarde described both species in his own 
quaint language, clearly from living specimens, and remarked, “I have 
found them in several places.’’ Mr. Druce cites “ Act. Holm. 15, 1744,” to 
show that O. latifolia has spotted leaves, but Linngeus neither cites that, 
nor yet states what the leaves are like. On turning up the references given 
by Linnzus, we find forms with both spotted and unspotted leaves, the latter 
being the O. latifolia of numerous early British authors and the O. preter- 
missa, Druce, a species known as British for upwards of 300 years, though 
much camouflaged by hybridity with O. maculata. L. (C. Fuchsii, Druce), 
where the two grow intermixed. The confusion under O. latifolia has long 
been known. As long ago as 1827 the elder Reichenbach separated the 
Continental form with spotted leaves, under the name of O. majalis, 
from the green-leaved O. latifolia. The relationship of these forms to 
each other requires further investigation, in which Mr, Druce’s friendly 
co-operation is invited. As to his final remarks, let us assure him that our 
interest is not limited to tropical Orchids, and to epiphytes at that. R.A.R. 
MILTONIODA CoopERt.—A greatly inproved form of this interesting 
generic hybrid has been sent by Messrs. Sanders, St. Albans. The parents 
are Cochlioda Neetzliana and Miltonia Warscewiczii, and the flower sent 
has an expanse of two inches, and most resembles the former parent in 
shape and colour. The sepals and petals are rosy scarlet, and the broad lip 
rosy buff, somewhat brighter inthe centre, and with yellow keels. The 
front of the column is deep yellow, and the apex and wings lilac. ihe 
original, described on page 232 of our twenty-first volume, had a shining 
patch on the lip. 
