THE ORCHID REVIEW. I45 



bright-colored Bermuda fishes, made from life by Mr. Verrill. The 

 photographic reproductions of these drawings showed accurately all the 

 tints and delicate shades of green, blue, pink, purple, yellow, and orange,, 

 beautifully blended. The colors in these pictures are peculiarly soft and 

 natural, without the stiffness of the three-color process. The bright-red 

 colors appear to be the most difficult to render by this process at present, 

 but no doubt this will soon be remedied by further experiments now in 

 progress. The photographs are on paper, and are made by a purely 

 photo-chemical process. The process is certain to be of great value for 

 photographing the colors of Natural History specimens and for reproducing 

 paintings, but is not adapted for portrait work owing to the length of exposure 

 required for the negatives. — A. E. V. in American Journal of Science, xiiL 

 (April, 1902), p. 329. 



AERANTHES RAMOSA. 



Under the name of Aeranthus ramosus, Cogn., M. Cogniaux has just 

 figured (Diet. Icon, des Orch.) a plant of which he received flowers from 

 M. Peeters, of Brussels, in September last, and to which he states that he 

 gave the name of A. Vespertilio. He also remarks that a month later a 

 plant which had been sent by Mr. Peeters to Mr. F. W. Moore was named 

 Aeranthes ramosa by Mr. Rolfe, who maintained the name in spite of his 

 request to change it; that it was published in the Orchid Review for 

 November as a name only ; and that in order to avoid synonymy he adopts 

 the name, but changes its form, because although Lindley published 

 Aeranthes in 182 1, he recognized that this was incorrect, and in 1824 

 changed it to Aeranthus. In his account of the genus he fixes the date of 

 first publication as 1825, and cites Botanical Register, sub tab. 517. This 

 «s an unfortunate string of errors. The original date of publication is 

 neither 1821 nor 1825, but 1824, and the plate is not 517, but 817 (to 

 which latter the so-called correction is wrongly assigned). And this " cor- 

 rection," which appeared in 1830 {Gen. & Sp. Orch., p. 243), is merely a 

 printer's error, the name being always correctly written by Lindley himself. 

 Nor is the form erroneous, any more than Coryanthes, Spiranthes, 

 Lepanthes, and various other genera of flowering plants. Then Aeranthes 

 ramosa did not appear as a name only, but is accompanied by a short 

 diagnosis which shows how it differs from other species of the genus. 

 Lastly, it is also stated that the species was discovered by M. Warpur, and 

 thus dates back to a much earlier period than that mentioned by M. 

 Cogniaux. The net result is that M. Cogniaux burdens our nomen- 

 clature with two unnecessary synonyms ! 



