102 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
cannot be wholly disregarded, inasmuch as they become current in horti- 
cultural literature. It constantly, therefore, becomes necessary to trace 
them to their earliest publication in order to obtain information as to the 
native country of the plants to which they belong, and other particulars 
relating to them. The task is, however, by no means an easy one, as the 
notices have to be sought in numerous and widely-scattered horticultural 
periodicals.” 
We may pass over the history of the annual lists—which can be traced 
back to the year 1860, when they commenced in the Gardeners’ Year Book— 
to note the scope of the work itself. ‘In addition to species and well- 
marked varieties, hybrids, whether introduced or of garden origin, have 
been included where they have been described with formal botanical names. 
Mere cultural forms of well-known garden plants are omitted for obvious 
reasons.’ References to the original descriptions and figures are given, 
with brief notes on habit and the more prominent characters of the plant, 
with indications of native country and approximate cultural conditions. 
In order to show what a prominent part Orchids play in the list, we 
may point out that out of the 7,600 names included, Odontoglossum and 
Cypripedium head the list with 350 each, then come Cattleya with 250, 
Dendrobium with 220, Lelia with 160, Masdevallia with 150, and Oncidium 
with 100. If some of these should appear disproportionately numerous, it _ 
only shows how much energy the describers of novelties have devoted to 
them, for the list is only intended to be an alphabetical index to garden 
literature, with such details as will be useful to those who may not be able 
to consult the numerous scattered periodicals in the original. ‘‘To have 
attempted to further elaborate it or to give it anything approaching scientific 
character would have postponed its publication indefinitely.” Its cost is 
four shillings, which it has since been pointed out merely covers the cost of 
paper and printing. We think that the work is likely to prove of great 
general utility. 
ODONTOGLOSSUM x ANDERSONIANUM VAR. 
BAPHICANTHUM. 
THis is, of course, the Odontoglossum baphicanthum of Reichenbach, 
and it is interesting to see at last a specimen named by. the author himself, 
though it is not the original one described in 1876 (Gard. Chron., 1876, Vi-) 
p. 276), which was sent to him by Mr. Arthur Veitch, and which was 
described as having “aristate sepals and petals, yellow with purplish 
blotches, and those finally are suffused over the whole of the sepals and 
petals (hence the name).” Lip “ yellow with purplish spots.” The one now 
under notice is from the collection of Norman C. Cookson, Esq., and has 
