264 THE ORCHID REVIEW. (NovEMBER, 1916. 
autumnale seems to be equivalent to Cattleya labiata autumnalis, the 
varietal name being used to indicate the time of flowering. 
Whether there are certainly recognisable differences besides the time of 
flowering seems doubtful. Hartweg’s specimens are exceptionally fine, but 
there are also large autumn-blooming forms, though we have no evidence 
as to the locality from which they came. R.A.R. 
2 
MONG the Orchids presented to Kew from the collection of Sir Trevor 
Lawrence, Bart., was one labelled Restrepia Falkenbergii, which on 
flowering proved to be Cryptophoranthus Dayanus, and the question has 
been raised what Restrepia Falkenbergii really is. It is rather a mysterious 
plant, which was described by Reichenbach in 1880 (Gard. Chron., 1880, 1. 
p. 224), but we have never succeeded in identifying it. The author 
remarked :— 
ee RESTREPIA FALKENBERGII. 
“This new Restrepia is easily recognised by its strong growth, its 
unicoloured sheaths without blotches, its large leaves (my largest one 0°05, 
o°oy m.), which are underneath almost totally bluish purple or with several 
stripes of that colour. The flowers are in the way of Restrepia antennifera, 
yellow with some white and purple. . . Who was its discoveror? I 
‘cannot say. It may have been discovered by M. Patin, in New Grenada. 
The two flowers he kindly gave me look admirable, and the purple stripes 
on the sides of the connate sepal are more conspicuous than in my last 
specimens. . . My recent specimens were gathered by two fresh 
collectors, eae Falkenberg and Schmidten. . . Mr. F. Sander has 
kindly sent sketches of flowers, dried specimens, some highly curious 
literary sketches, and a living Restrepia. . . It is a great satisfaction to 
name it in memory of Mr. Falkenberg.’”’ 
This is not very definite, but the technical description shows it to be 4 
true Restrepia. At all events the dorsal sepal is described as long caudate, 
with triangular base and a clavate apex, the petals much like the dorsal 
sepal, but shorter and narrower, and the lip pandurate—characters which 
do not apply to Cryptophoranthus. The plant is described as nearly eight 
inches (org m.) high, and the leaf as cuneate oblong. These characters 
would suggest the original R. antennifera, H.B.K., not the spotted species 
which often does duty for it (which is really R. maculata, Lindl.). The 
dimensions are too great for R. striata, Rolfe, the other species with striped 
flowers. And there remains the question whether all the plants mentioned 
above are identical, a point that may be cleared up when the Reichen- 
bachian Herbarium is accessible. R.A.R. 
