24o THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



the point. It may be added that M. Warpur's plant has variegated leaves, 

 comparable with those of Cystorchis variegata, the nerves being brownish 

 green on a paler ground, but more uniformly dark when young, and the 

 flowers whitish, with the petals and mid-vein of the sepals light brown, and 

 barely two lines long. The differences observed in the column of 

 Gymnochilus are common to regular peloriate states of other Orchids, and 

 the genus must evidently be abolished. 



R. A. Rolfe. 



ODONTOGLOSSUM x ARMAINVILLIERENSE VAR. 

 ARDENTISSIMUM. 



Wi: 



notes to make respecting the name of this hand- 



Odoncoglossum. M. Chas. Vuylsteke wr 



gn app 



of the photographic illustration given at page 209 of our last issue, 

 but at the same time he thinks that the name must be changed, for he 

 adds :— " Connoisseurs tell me that it has no relation with O. X armainvil- 

 lierense." M. Vuylsteke does not appear to have seen that plant himself, 

 unfortunately we are in the same fix, and have to rely upon the 



published note, which, howe 



regrettably short 



parentage. We hope M. Jacob will favour us with a bloom next season. 



The Gardeners' Chronicle has also reproduced a drawing of the plant, 

 under the name of Odontoglossum X ardentissimum (p. 50, fig. ly), which 

 differs considerably from the photographic illustration, whose accuracy 

 cannot be gainsaid. They allude to the plant as a "showy hybrid between 

 a spotted form of O. Pescatorei and, it is said, the heavily blotched O. 

 cnspum Franz Masereel." And speaking of the awards made to this and 

 three other forms at the last Temple Show, they remark :-<< Unfortunately, 

 by a misunderstanding, the plants were taken for forms of Odontoglossum 

 cnspum, and were at the same time so recorded ; but when the true story 

 of their production was known, it was decided by the Orchid Committee of 

 the Royal Horticultural Society to adopt the name of Odontoglossum X 

 ardentissimum as the primary name of the set, and to include all others 

 of the same class under it." They thus appear to have totally overlooked 

 O. X armainvilherense, but should the record of that plant prove correct 

 the name will require further amendment. 



It is unfortunate that there should be such an amount of uncertainty as 

 to the correct name of this beautiful plant. Of course O X armainvil- 

 herense might be very different in appearance from the one under dis- 

 cussion and yet be derived from the same two species, for M. Vuylsteke 

 himself speaks of the great variation among his batch of seedlings (su P ra, 

 p. 220). We hope to see the question cleared up. 



