SEPTEMBER, 1917.] THE ORCHID REVIEW 195 
| GA 
B 
F it were to be remarked that Lindley’s long-lost Doritis pulcherrima 
is now flowering freely in the Kew collection, the statement would 
probably cause some surprise, but it is none the less a plain statement of 
fact, and the history of the plant and its recovery will therefore be read 
with interest. 
The genus was established by Lindley as long ago as 1833 (Gen. & Sp. 
Orch., p. 178), being based on a dried specimen collected by Finlayson 
near Turon (or Tourane) Bay, Cochin China, from the Herbarium of the 
East India Co. -(Wall. Cat., n. 7348). The specimen in Lindley’s 
Herbarium consists of a leaf and the base of a flowerless scape, with 
Se 
rs 
DORITIS PULCHERRIMA. 
analytical sketches of the floral details (the flower itself appears not: to 
have been kept). The Kew specimen is still more fragmentary, being 
without a leaf, but there is part of the apex of the inflorescence with a few 
bracts. Both Reichenbach and Bentham, when adding other species to 
the genus, have commented upon the difficulty of identifying the original 
plant, and the species has remained doubtful down to the present. 
Since then, however, the Wallichian Herbarium has come to Kew, and 
it occurred to us to look up the material preserved there. We found two 
leaves, portions of branched and an unbranched inflorescence, and a single 
dried flower. It is carefully labelled with Lindley’s name and the 
Catalogue number, and there is also an original ticket of Finlayson, 
inscribed ‘‘ Epidendrum, Turon Bay, n. 521.” The specimen was clearly 
Phalzenopsis Esmeralda, Rchb. f., and with this clue we turned to the Kew 
collection of drawings. Here was a fine painting, with four leaves, and an 
unbranched inflorescence with 17 flowers and buds, labelled ‘* Orchidea, 
Finlayson, n. 521,” the actual number of Finlayson’s original ticket. In 
the absence of the name and of the original ticket there was absolutely 
nothing to show that it was an original painting of Doritis pulcherrima, 
and its identity has remained unsuspected until now. Asa matter of fact, 
the painting was found years ago by the writer, and labelled ‘‘ Phalznopsis 
Esmeralda, Rchb. f.—R.A.R.” 
PHALNopsIS ESMERALDA, Rchb. f., was described in 1874 (Gard. Chron., 
1874, ii. p. 582), as a lovely gem, bearing six spikes of amethyst-coloured 
blossoms, showing from 15 to 20 flowers. Information as to the collector 
and native country were deferred. It afterwards appeared (Orchidophile. 1. 
p. 9) that it was introduced from Cochin China by M. Godefroy Lebeuf, 
who found it in two localities in the island of Phuquoc, in the Gulf of Siam, 
growing on isolated rocks in the midst of a small thicket of conifers—never 
on trees—and that during the dry season, when all vegetation on the rocks 
