254 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [Nov.-Dec., 1918. 
matter,” Rolfe remarked that ‘‘the evidence was too strong to be set aside,” 
and asked, ‘‘ Will no one make a few experiments and thus clear the matter 
up ? ’—Reichenbachia, ser. 2, ii. p. 43. 
1893.—A detailed list given of the synonyms and numerous varieties of 
Leliocattleya elegans and Lc. Schilleriana, with notes of their characters, 
and references to descriptions and figures. — Rolfe in Orch. Rev., 
1. pp. 235-238. 
1898.—Origin of Lzliocattleya Schilleriana proved by Messrs. Charles- 
worth & Co., by the flowering of a seedling raised from Lelia purpurata x 
C. intermedia, and shortly afterwards by M. Ch. Maron from the same 
parents (the latter recorded as Lec. elegans, Rev. Hort., 1898, p. 335).— 
Orch. Rev., vi. pp. 168, 259. 
Ig11.—Origin of Leeliocattleya elegans proved experimentally by Mr. 
E. F. Clark, who flowered an identical seedling raised from Cattleya 
Leopoldii xX Lelia purpurata.—Orch. Rev., xix. p. 261 (where a concise 
history of the hybrid and its parents will be found). 
There may, of course, be secondary hybrids among the numerdus forms 
described, but the foregoing will show how completely the inferences 
derived from a study of the history and characters of the two plants have 
been vindicated. .A.R. 
HE last meeting of the year of the Royal Horticultural Society will be 
held at the London Scottish Drill Hall, Buckingham Gate, West- 
minster, on December 3rd. The Orchid Committee meets at II-45 a.m. 
The first two meetings in the new year are January 14th and 28th. 
ORCHID NOTES AND NEWS. 
The corresponding meeting of the Manchester and North of England 
Orchid Society will be held at the Coal Exchange, Manchester, on 
December 1gth. The Committee meets at noon, and the exhibits are open 
to inspection from 1 to 4 p.m. The first meetings in the new year will be 
held on January 16th and 30th. 
The Journal of Botany remarks:—‘“ In the Orchid Review for July-August, 
Mr. Rolfe has a paper on ‘ The British Marsh Orchises,’ in which the more 
recent literature concerning these puzzling plants is summed up. Mr. 
Rolfe regards Orchis maculata, O. latifolia and O. incarnata as ‘ thoroughly 
distinct, though their natural limits have been obscured by the camouflage 
of hybridity where they yrow intermixed. To this we attribute the 
confusion into which the group has fallen. All the three possible com- 
binations have been recognised in Britain.’ The paper contains much that 
