222 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [Octoper, 1917. 
Burma by Parish, in Polynesia by Wilkes, in Africa by Schweinfurth,: 
Africa and the Comora Islands by Hildebrand, in Brazil by Warming, 
a miscellaneous African collection received from Kew. 
good many of which are well known from garden specimens, 
dried, from figures, or from duplicate types. But in many other cases 
description. An extract from an Obituary notice which appeared in , 
Proceedings of the Linnean Society, written before the fate of the Herbarium 
was known, will illustrate this point. 
“Reichenbach has been the sponsor of an innumerable host of new 
species, varieties, and hybrids; every scrap or drawing or memorandum 
was carefully hoarded for his herbarium. T his, therefore, has become the 
key to his life-long labours, and the destination of it will be eagerly awaited; 
a careful working of it by. competent ‘hands will be needed to clear up the 
many puzzles in his descriptions, which of late years had assumed an 
esoteric character, presuming on an almost equal knowledge of plants to 
that possessed by the author. The state of his herbarium is also quite 
unktown, for during long years past no botanist has been permitted to have 
even a glimpse at it.” 
A subsequent experience of over a quarter of a century amply confirms 
these remarks, for it is quite impossible to make out what was intended by 
some of these descriptions. An example will illustrate this point. What is 
Brassia arcuigera? We turn up the description, and find as follows :— 
“ BRASSIA ARCUIGERA, sp. n.—Bracteis triangulis ochreatis acutis ovaria ~ 
pedicellata longe non equantibus ; sepalis linearibus acuminatis, labello 
paulo longioribus; tepalis subeequalibus brevioribus; labello oblongo 
pandurato aristato, lamellis in basi semioblongis geminis intus papillosis, 
antice utrinque in arcum extrorsum excedentibus ; columna basi ampliata.” 
“One of the Peruvian introductions of Messrs. Veitch. It is in the way 
of Brassia Lanceana, but the flowers are smaller.—H. G. Rcup. FIL.” 
Dimensions, so important a 
by their absence—this, indeed 
work—and the hopelessness o 
Peruvian Brassias is increased 
part in such descriptions, are conspicuous 
, 1s characteristic of much of Reichenbach’s ‘ 
f attempting to identify the plant among 
by the fact that such characters as are given 
apply equally well to other species of the genus, as may quickly be found if 
any one cares to test the question by comparison. The description may oF 
may not be good, as far as it goes, but it is inadequate, and although this 
would not so much matter if the original specimen could be consulted, it 
becomes exasperatingly obvious when one has a Peruvian Brassia to name 
and finds the original specimen sealed against him for a quarter of 2 
