THE ORCHID REVIEW. : 327 
PHALAZENOPSIS PALLENS. 
It is interesting to record that, after a long interval, this rather mysterious 
Phalznopsis has turned up again. A plant received, with the name 
Phalznopsis cornu-cervi, it is believed from the Calcutta Botanic Garden, 
in 1895, together with other Malayan species, has just flowered at Kew, 
and was immediately seen to be something very distinct. On comparison 
it proves identical with a plant described by Lindley, in 1850, under the 
name of Trichoglottis pallens (Journ. Hort. Soc., v., p. 34). It was described 
as “a native of Manilla; received from His Grace the Duke of Devonshire’s 
collection at Chatsworth. I observed this curious species in flower at 
Chatsworth in November last. It was then a dwarf, erect plant, with 
oblong distichous leaves, and a lateral flower or two, not quite two inches 
in diameter, pale yellowish green, with delicate brownish spots and a white 
lip. The latter organ was oblong, with a white, shaggy crest on the upper 
side, and a pair of short, yellowish, scimitar-shaped segments standing 
erect near the base. Within these were a pair of forked callosities, one 
placed before the other in the centre, but no sac or pouch was found 
between them.” A single flower is preserved in Lindley’s Herbarium, 
together with a coloured sketch of the lip and pollinarium. The name was 
changed by Reichenbach, in 1860, to Stauropsis pallens (Hamb. Gartenz., 
XVi., p. 117), and in 1864 to Phalenopsis pallens (Walp. Ann., Vi., p. 932). 
Until now the only other plant that I have heard of flowered in the 
Glasnevin Botanic Garden in 1886. When I wrote my “ Revision of the 
Genus Phalzenopsis” I alluded to P. pallens as a plant described in 1850 
which seemed to have “since been lost sight of’ (Gard. Chron., 1886, xxvi., 
Pp. 276). Mr. F. W. Moore then wrote that he had a nice plant which had 
flowered that season, and he much regretted that he was unaware of the 
flowers being of use, or he would have sent them. Unfortunately the plant 
afterwards died, and I never knew more of its history, and cannot say how 
far it was identical with the original plant. ae, 
The present plant in any case agrees with the original, and its history 
Suggests an error in the recorded locality. Had it really come from Manila 
it would almost certainly have been met with again long before this, and 
the circumstance of its re-discovery suggests a new idea of its origin, . 
namely, that it may be a natural hybrid. It bears some striking resem- 
blances both to P. cornu-cervi and P. sumatrana, which are both Malayan 
Species, found in several localities, and may occur somewhere intermixed. 
P. cornu-cervi and P. violacea grow and hybridise together in Perak, for 
Mr. Ridley remarks :—‘‘ I have seen two examples of a hybrid found in a 
Wild state in Perak” (Journ. Linn. Soc., XXxii., Pp. 352), though he makes no 
_ Mention of P. x Valentini, which Reichenbach, on the suggestion of the late 
