Juty, 1917.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 157 
redescribed it under the name of P. grandiflora. This mistake was- 
detected by Reichenbach, who renamed the Philippine plant P. Aphrodite, 
but he adopted the illogical position that the erroneous names should be 
retained for garden purposes only, hence the long time which elapsed. 
before the correct names were adopted. The climax was reached when 
long afterwards the Javan plant was introduced in quantity under the name: 
of P. Rimestadiana, under which it is still often cultivated. 
Another kind of made-up figure is seen in the case of Masdevallia 
racemosa showing over a dozen flowers expanded at the same time (Veitch 
Man. Orch., v. p. 58), whereas in nature they would appear in succession 
over a considerable period. This mistake is probably explained by the. fact 
that at the original sale of living plants, in 1883, a dried specimen was 
exhibited on which the numerous flowers had been carefully arranged as if 
all open together. It was shortly afterwards spoken of as “the last new 
arrival, M. racemosa Crossii, the dried flowers of which, borne from ten to 
twelve on a spike,” &c. (Gard. Chron., 1884, i. p. 736). The original of 
this drawing was presented to Kew, where it is now preserved. In cultiva- 
tion it is very rare to.see more than two flowers expanded at the same time. 
Misfortune dogged the footsteps of another early Orchid. Anguloa 
uniflora, the original species of the genus, was described and figured by 
Ruiz & Pavon in 1794, from materials collected in Peru. In 1844, Lindley 
published a figure of what he supposed to be the same (Bot. Reg., xxx. t. 
60). He remarked: ‘‘ We some time ago announced the appearance in 
this country of a.new species of the long-lost genus Anguloa, concerning 
which so many mistakes have been made. We are now able, by the 
kindness of Mr. Barker, of Birmingham, to publish the very Anguloa 
uniflora itself, which he was so fortunate as to flower in April last. We 
believe he received it among Linden’s collectioas from Columbia ; according 
to Ruiz & Pavon it is found in precipitous places about Muna and Chincao,. 
in Peru, and profusely, in the woods of Tarma, where it is called Carpales.”’ 
This view passed current until some eight years ago, when a Peruvian 
Anguloa, said to have been imported from Moyobamba by Mr. Kromer, 
with Cattleya Rex, was exhibited at a meeting of the R.H.S. by Mr. 
Kromer. Inthe meantime an Anguloa eburnea, supposedly of Columbian 
origin, had been described and figured (Will. Orch. Alb., iii. t. 133), with 
which I immediately identified Mr. Kromer’s plant, and subsequent 
comparison of all the materials and figures showed that this was the original 
A. uniflora of Ruiz & Pavon, while the Columbian plant was distinct, and 
for this Linden’s name of A. virginalis had to be adopted. The history of 
the confusion has been fully recorded (O.R., xvii. pp. 316, 317; Xx. p. 106). 
A most remarkable mistake occurs in the last plate of Mr. Bateman’s 
big book already mentioned (t. 40), where the males of two distinct species 
