THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
VoL. VIII.] NOVEMBER, 1900. [No. 95. 
DIES ORCHIDIANZA, 
T am glad to see by the notes on page 304 that the question of Orchid 
diseases is likely to be followed up. It is a question of great practical 
_ importance, and even the best cultivators cannot always regulate their 
SEL ee ee 
pe ne 
a treatment so as to prevent an outbreak, nor yet successfully grapple with 
it. Insect pests are bad enough, but one now knows pretty much what 
they are, and how to deal with them, which is not the case with fungal 
diseases. If Dr. Burtt can tell us just what they are, and the phases of 
their life history, we shall be much better able to deal with them. In many 
Cases when an outbreak occurs, that is when the effects become visible to 
the naked eye, the mischief is already done, but if we knew how to detect 
the very earliest symptoms the application of a remedy might be attended 
_ with much more success. It will be interesting to know just how many 
enemies we have, for I gather from the notes on the subject that there are 
Several of them. Let us hope that all will ultimately come under investiga- 
tion. 
There is another matter which excites my curiosity, and it of less 
Practical importance I snould still like. to see the subject investigated. 
On page 303 I see a note of some supposed hybrids between Sobralia 
-Macrantha and Cattleya gigas, though when they flowered they 
-Ptoved identical with the former, which was the mother plant. Several 
Other similar cases have been recorded. I 
remember _ seedlings 
from Epidendrum x O’Brienianum crossed with a Dendrobium, but 
when they flowered no trace could be found in them of the Dendrobium. 
Then Lelia cinnabarina crossed with Cypripedium villosum reproduced 
Only the former, while the reversed cross only yielded the latter. I believe 
that someone has suggested that the whole matter is a huge joke, but some 
(Of the experimenters seem to have taken the matter quite seriously, and 
