172 fHE.- ORCHID REVIEW: [Nov.-DEc., 1919. 
names, or should they be regarded as varieties of the primary hybrid? 
They have sometimes been treated as varieties of the parent species, which 
they certainly are not, though they may occasionally revert to them. As to 
the two Ophryses mentioned :— 
Opurys BoTTEeRontl, Chod. (see p. 142), originally mentioned in a note 
in 1887 (Not. Polyg. Eur.), was described two years later (Bull. Soc. Bot. 
Genev., v. p- 187) as a plant first seen in 1882, and annually since, occurring 
among O. arachnites and a few rare O. apifera. It was also found by M. 
Botteron, an amateur botanist, after whom it was named. O. apifera var. 
aurita, Gremli (Neue Bettr. Fl. Schweiz, iv. p- 31) was given as a synonym. In 
1891, O. Albertiana, Camus, was described (Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr., XXxviil., p. 43) 
as a hybrid between O. apifera and O. fuciflora (the latter synonymous with 
O. arachnites), from a plant found near Champagne, France. Three years 
later O. Botteronii was figured by Max Schulze (Orch. Deutschl., t. 31 d). 
In 1902, O. insidiosa, Duffort, was described as a hybrid between the same 
two species (Bull. Soc. Bot. Gers, xi. p- 27), having been found near. Masseube, 
France. In 1905 we find O. Botteronii var. Chodatii, Wilczek (Bull. Herb. 
Boiss., ser. 2, vi. p. 324), this being a plant found in the delta of the 
Drance, near Amphion, with the same two species. Finally, in 1907, Brand 
changed O. Botteronii into O. apifera var. Botteronii (Koch. Syn. Deutsch. 
Fi., ed., ili. p. 2438). We should much liketo have materials for comparison, 
but the origin and parentage seems pretty conclusive. 
O. HYBRIDA, Pokorny (see p. 143), is. admittedly variable, and the 
history has been very fully given (O.R., xiii. PP- 233-235, fig. 56). The 
forms referred to it are clearly all derived from O. muscifera and O. 
aranifera, and until it can be shown that it recrosses with the parent species 
the matter had better rest where it is. Recrossing with both parents 
would give two secondary hybrids’; also an interesting problem in nomen- 
clature. Will no one attempt it ? R. A. ROLFE. 
L&LIOCATTLEYA EXONIENSIS.—It may be remembered that much 
difference of opinion has been expressed as to the parentage of this hand- 
some hybrid, the first Leliocattleya raised ¢see O.R., i. p- 5). We have 
just stumbled across the following note about it, written as long ago as 
1868, by Mr. J. Wills, in an account of the fine collection of Sam Mendel, 
Esq., Manley Hall, Manchester (Gard. Chron., 1868, p. 1319). When 
speaking of Cattleyas, Mr. Wills mentioned “a fine plant of crispa superba, 
which Mr. Milford considers equal in beauty to Mr. Dominy’s fine new 
exoniensis ; he thinks, moreover, that crispa superba is one of the parents. 
of exoniensis, Lelia purpurata not having the beautiful scent that C- 
crispa has. The fine plant of the last has a seed-pod on it nearly ripe, from 
which Mr. Milford is hopeful of producing some fine and highly-scented 
* 
