184 THE ORCHID. REVIEW. [AuGUST, 1917. 
A few curious mistakes have arisen through the mixture of materials 
derived from different sources, and one of the most remarkable is seen in 
the case of Maxillaria spathacea, Lindl. (Gen. & Sp. Orch., p. 131). This 
was described as a beautiful species, the flowers having the facies and size 
of Maxillaria Harrisonie, but the pollen and anther unknown. The 
description shows a habit and spathe totally unlike anything in the 
Maxillaria group, and as a matter of fact it is made up of a plant of a 
diphyllous Cattleya, probably C. intermedia, and three flowers of Bifrenaria 
Harrisoniz. It was based on a mounted sheet in Sir William Hooker's 
Herbarium, and was said to have been collected in Brazil by Boaz. The 
marvel is that Lindley, who must have known both the diverse plants well, 
did not detect the mistake, for the material is ample. 
It is not an isolated case, for Lindley also described a Cymbidium 
limbatum (/.c., p. 145), the source of which is given as Trinidad, Shepherd. 
Now the genus Cymbidium is unrepresented in the New World, and it was 
probably for this reason that Grisebach transferred the plant to Govenia as 
G. limbata (Fl. Brit. W. Ind., p. 628). The change was no improvement, 
though there was an element of plausibility about it. In fact, it is made up 
from an inflorescense of a Cymbidium of the aloifolium group—now called 
C. simulans, Rolfe—and a leaf of Oncidium luridum. The source is 
probably correct so far as the leaf is concerned, but the inflorescence 
must have been added by.some carelessness in sorting or mounting the: 
specimens. 
Many other bona-fide mistakes could be pointed out, in fact the list 
could be greatly prolonged without exhausting the subject. Cases 
of mis-identification, inadvertent misplacing of labels and tickets, and 
erroneous records of parentage among hybrids are, of course, numerous, 
and how many still remain to be detected time alone will tell, but the 
examples cited will show how great and varied are the opportunities for 
mistakes in such a vast and intricate subject. They also show the 
importance of preserving careful records, specimens, and drawings— 
indeed, without the two latter it is doubtful whether some of the errors 
would ever have been cleared up. This consideration alone shows the 
outrageous character of Reichenbach’s act in sealing up his Herbarium 
against his contemporaries and successors. for a period of a quarter of a 
century—now indefinitely prolonged by a disastrous war. When this- 
collection is at length accessible for study a new crop of errors will 
probably come to light, but on such a matter speculation is useless. e€ 
examples cited belong to an earlier period, and are not without interest 
when viewed from the historical standpoint. And the necessity for 
correction should be obvious to all, for one cannot write history by 
compromising with the facts. RAE 
