FHE ORCHID REVIEW. 



sponged with tepid water at least o 

 tive, and, if necessary, light vapour 



NOTES ON RECENT RESEARCH. 



In the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society for August last we notice 

 an innovation which is likely to be very useful. Under the title of " Notes 

 on recent research, and short abstracts from current periodical literature, 

 British and Foreign, affecting Horticulture and Horticultural Science," the 

 Society hopes in future to give in each issue an abstract or short digest of 

 all current Horticultural and Botanical periodical literature, at home and 

 abroad. In this first issue we find a list of Journals, Bulletins, and Reports 

 from which the abstracts are to be made, their abbreviated titles, and also 

 a list of thirty-two contributors who have undertaken to furnish these 

 abstracts. By glancing through the sixty-odd pages devoted to the subject 

 one is able to get a very useful idea of what may be termed the drift of 

 current topics, and should one want to pursue a given subject further one 

 knows where to turn forthe original information. The notes are alphabeti" 

 cally arranged, and we notice over thirty short references to Orchids, some 

 being references to figures. With such a number of contributors it is 

 naturally difficult to secure uniformity of treatment, but there is room for 

 improvement in this respect. For example, we observe a note on a new 

 Phaius, in which H. J. C. is said to discuss in a general way the system of 

 Orchid nomenclature, and in this particular case he resents "the action of 

 the botanist in altering names that have become established in gardens." 

 We also find a notice of a figure. But the original article in these pages, 

 which drew forth the comment is not even mentioned, nor yet the figure, 

 though another figure is cited. And yet the Orchid Review is cited 

 among the list of Journals to be summarized. 



In the December number, however, amends are made for this omission 

 for nearly half the notes on Orchids are made with reference to articles in our 

 own pages. And we find a note by H. J. C. :— " Phaius tuberculosa. By 

 R. A. Rolfe (Orch. Rev., p. 41, Feb., 1901).— The distinction between the 

 species which has been been grown for so many years in gardens as Phaius 

 tuberculosus (now transferred to P. simulans) and the original variety 

 described by M. Thouars [is pointed out;." Second thoughts are some- 

 times best. It was never quite clear why anyone should object to a blunder 

 being pointed out, even if the discovery led to a little temporary incon- 

 venience. To return to the general subject, we congratulate the Society 

 upon this interesting addition to its Journal, and we hope to see it con- 

 tinued. To the contributors of the abstracts thanks should be given, for 

 such work entails a considerable amount of labour. 



