THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
*, 1921. 
[September 
■C. Hardyana petals. In Lc. General Maude we have the result of crossing 
Lc. rubens with C. Hardyana, thus utilising this latter plant for the second 
time, and producing a flower that may be termed a good C. Hardyana 
improved by the addition of L. pumila. Our illustration shows the fine 
variety of this novelty that obtained an Award of Merit at the Royal 
Horticultural Society, July 26th, 1921, when exhibited by H. T. Pitt, 
Esq., of Stamford Hill. The flower measured about seven inches across. 
Paphinia cristata.—A plant of this rare and singular species has 
recently been in flower in the collection of H. T. Pitt, Esq., at Stamford 
Hill, London, where it is cultivated in a shallow pan suspended from one of 
the rafters. Some 60 years ago it was said to require a peculiar treatment 
to grow it well, and this read as follows“ Take a wide, shallow pot, drain 
it well, then have ready a number of square-cut pieces of fibrous peat; with 
these form a wall, as it were, on the margin of the pot, and fill in the inside 
with rough peat and sphagnum moss ; then place round a second layer of 
the square pieces, drawing them a little inwards, and fill up again with the 
•compost. Proceed so till the space at the top is just large enough to hold 
the plant; then place it on it, and fix it there with more square blocks of 
peat. It will then stand upon, as it were, a pyramid of peat, and will soon 
grow quickly and flower freely. 
Orchis latifolia. —The Journal of Botany, Jan., 1921, contains an 
article on Orchis latifolia in Britain, by Rev. T. Stephenson, D.D., and 
Mr. T. A. Stephenson, M.Sc. The characters by which O. latifolia may be 
roughly distinguished from other forms are given, also the definitions of the 
four main groups with two sub-groups into which these forms can easily be 
arranged. By way of summary, the authors say: “That the view which 
our present knowledge suggests to us is that O. latifolia is a true species, 
and that a truly typical specimen of it cannot be confounded with any other 
species or with first-generation hybrids ; but that it is extremely variable— 
some of the forms resembling no other species, some verging more towards 
O. prsetermissa and some towards O maculata, but at the same time not in 
any sense identical with these species.” Since, the above article was 
completed, the authors state that “ Dr. Druce has published a long and 
interesting note, in which he combats, as. we think quite successfully, Mr. 
Rolfe’s contention that O. praetermissa is the true O. latifolia. Col. 
Godfery has also written strongly urging the recognition of O. latifolia as a 
valid species. In this and his preceding article (Journ . Bot., 1919, 137-142), 
Col. Godfery has produced ample evidence of the occurrence of a pure O. 
latifolia on the Continent. It is practically certain that British plants 
precisely similar to these belong to the same species.” 
