THE ORCHID REVIEW. 203 



indication, it might be very serviceable, provided we were favoured also 

 with the name of the benefactor, as anonymous presents of this kind are 

 apt to be dubious." — Gard. Chron., 1881, xv., p. 9. 



In the seventh edition of Williams' Orchid Growers Manual, dated 1885 

 (I cannot refer to an earlier one), we read : — " S. Dodgsoni, Williams. — A 

 very distinct and handsome species. The leaves are terete, a foot or more 

 in length, and of a dark green colour. The peduncle is short, bearing two 

 flowers ; the sepals and petals light brown inside, darker at the base, and 

 blotched with light yellow ; the lip white, cup-shaped, beautifully streaked 

 with light rose and yellow — said to have been introduced from Demerara." 

 —P. 572. 



So far as the details go, they indicate an affinity with S. Hadwenii, with 

 differences in colour, a feature also very marked in Mr. Feiling's plant, 

 though in the latter the sepals and petals are of a lurid red, with a few 

 whitish markings, chiefly on the petals, and the lip is white, strongly veined 

 throughout with purple-red. The lip is somewhat concave, but more 

 distinctly three-lobed than in S. Hadwenii, the veins hairy, and the crest 

 five-lobed — at least the two lateral teeth are again bifid. Has the missing 

 plant re-appeared, or have we a new species to deal with ? This plant is 

 not a " myth," and surely some one can help us to clear the matter up. 



R. A. Rolfe. 



LAW NOTES. 



Hugh Low & Co. v. Appleton. 

 On Wednesday, May 29th, 1902, before Mr. Justice Lawrance and a special 

 jury, an action was brought by Messrs. Hugh Low & Co., of Enfield, 

 against Mr. W. M. Appleton, of Weston-super-Mare, to recover damages 

 for breach of warranty on the sale of an Orchid. Mr. Horridge, K.C., and 

 Mr. Randolph appeared for the Plaintiffs, and Mr. Holman Gregory for the 

 Defendant. 



Mr. Horridge, in opening the case, said that in May last the Pbintiffs 

 purchased from the Defendant for £45 an Orchid warranted to be Cypripe- 

 dium insigne Harefield Hall variety, but which, when it flowered in 

 November turned out to be a common insigne, and therefore practically 

 worthless. The plant was received by the Plaintiffs in May, and in 

 August it was divided by Mr. Low, and one portion of it flowered in 

 November as a common insigne. The Defendant appeared to have some 

 sort of contention that the plant could not have flowered in the time, 

 also that the variety could not be identified by the foliage. Certain letters 

 had also been produced from an Orchid grower in Yorkshire, a Mr. 

 Keeling, from whom the plant was originally purchased, on which he would 



