OcToBER, 1917.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 223 
century. The law of priority forbids the imposition of a new name, but it 
is an abuse to extend its protection to such cases, for the intention to 
paralyse future work by sealing up his Herbarium was deliberate and 
calculated. ‘‘ He was jealous to excess of any supposed encroachment on 
his special preserve; his treatment of the same was characteristic,” 
remarks the obituary notice above-mentioned. It was that, but one never 
expected to see it carried to posthumous lengths. 
The systematic value of Reichenbach’s work is difficult to estimate, as 
so many of his species are still unknown, but he had some curious ideas as 
to generic distinctions. For instance, in Walper’s Annales he reduced 
Cattleya to Epidendrum, while Lelia, Brassavola and Schomburgkia were 
made synonymous with Bletia. Yet the closely allied Sophronitis was kept 
distinct. Brassia was merged in Oncidium, and Aspasia and Gomeza in 
Odontoglossum, while Bollea, Pescatorea, Warscewiczella, Kefersteinia, 
Promenza, and Huntleya were all transferred to Zygopetalum, which thus 
became a large polymorphic aggregate. Otochilus and Pholidota were also 
reduced to Ccelogyne, Oberonia to Malaxis, and Megaclinium to 
Bulbophyllum. 
The difficulty of understanding his system was expressed by Bentham 
when working up the Orchids for the Genera Plantarum, for in a preliminary 
essay, after a highly complimentary reference to Reichenbach’s work and 
competence, he remarked: “‘ In his numerous publications he has proposed, 
- modified, combined, or suppressed a large number of genera ; but he has 
nowhere as yet given any synopsis of contrasted characters so as to give a 
clue to the principles upon which he would limit the tribes and genera he 
would adopt. . . . He appears, for instance, generally to rely upon 
floral characters, to the exclusion of vegetative ones, more on the absolute 
number than on the form and arrangement of the pollen masses, and often 
to attach much more importance to the calli, lobes, and appendages of the 
labellum and column than I should do in respect of genera. I trust, how- 
ever, he may yet give us a clue to his systematic views in time for use in 
the new part of our Genera Plantanum now in preparation.” 
But the invitation was never accepted; on the contrary it is on record 
that Reichenbach felt aggrieved by the remarks, and that when the work 
appeared he indeed projected a series of criticisms in the Journal of Botany 
about Mr. Bentham’s Monograph, stipulating that he was not to be fettered 
in the expression of his opinion. ‘The project, however, was never carried 
into effect. Perhaps a simpler and more drastic method was adopted 
of dealing with those who ventured within the precincts of his sacred 
preserves. At all events the following MSS. note appears in the Kew copy 
of the Journal of Botany containing the obituary notice and that of the 
disposal of his Herbarium: ‘‘ Reichenbach told me more than once that 
