-296 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [OcToBER, 1915. 
C. pileatum and C. Bungerothii were connected together when the 
‘Species was subsequently figured in Reichenbachia under the former name 
(ser. I, ll. p. go, t. 91. It was remarked: ‘‘A glance at the cap-like male 
flowers will show how singularly appropriate and descriptive is the 
name ‘ pileatum’ which Reichenbach selected. There is no doubt that he 
was perfectly aware of his C. pileatum being the same as Mr. Brown’s 
-C. Bungerothii, for in a- letter to us, dated Aug. 8th, 1887, he wrote: 
‘Baron Schréder has sent me, through Ballantine, an enormous spike of 
-Catasetum pileatum’; and this was from the plant bought by the Baron in 
Stevens’ auctionjrooms as C. Bungerothii. According to the laws of 
-botanical nomenclature, therefore, Catasetum pileatum is the correct name 
for the plant know as C. Bungerothii, on account of its description having 
been published some years previous to that of the latter. This is an 
instance where we are made to feel very keenly the act of Reichenbach in 
locking up his herbarium for twenty-five years to prevent reference to his 
-specimens.” 
This identification led to a discussion (Gard. Chron., 1890, i. p. 618), in 
which M. L. Linden admitted having received the identification from 
Reichenbach, and remarked that although he did not remember what 
-Catasetum he had sent, still he thought it could not have been anything 
-so fine as C. Bungerothii, though the reference to Mormodes luxatum 
indicated a resemblance. The Editor then reviewed the history of the two 
plants, and added: ‘‘ We, or. our successors, can well afford to wait 
~patiently till the Professor’s herbarium is unlocked a quarter of a century 
lence to ascertain for certain what it was that M. Linden sent to him.” 
For our part we think the evidence conclusive, and we have retained the 
-original name. : of 
It is remarkable that so fine a species was not recorded before, for in 
1889 it was recorded that it was collected by Spruce over thirty years 
earlier, and that a specimen had laid unrecognised and unnamed at Kew, 
though not in its correct genus, since the Spruce collections were received 
there (Rolfe, in Gard. Chron., 1889, ii. p. 466). The late Mr. E. S. Rand, 
of Para, also wrote to us in October, 1891, remarking: ‘‘ Did I ever tell you 
that I had C. Bungerothii long before Bungeroth discovered it? My 
plant did not bloom for a long while; when it did I found it was new, 
and sent half of it to Linden. It was the yellow variety figured last 
year as var. Randii (Ill. Hort.,- xxxvii. p. 117, t. 117). | Meanwhile 
Bungeroth had sent the white to Linden, and that became the type. 
The plant is Amazonian. The white is from Venezuela, and has been 
long known in Trinidad.” 
Other varieties are known, but a note on these and on the appearance of 
the female flowers is deferred. 
