THE ORCHID REVIEW. 3"' 



ing three plants : — Lcelio-cattleya x albanensis inversa (C. Warned X 

 L. tenebrosa), L.-c. X Adolphus (L. cinnabarina X C. Aclandiae), and the 

 handsome Sophrolselia X heatonensis (S. grandiflora X L. purpurata), the 

 latter a handsome flower, bright cerise in colour. 



Mr. John Robson, Altrincham, received an Award of Merit for 

 Cypripedium X Lawrebel. 



Messrs. Cowan and Co., Gateacre, showed O ncidium X punctatum, a 

 supposed natural hybrid between O. Forbesii and O. Gardneri. 



Mr. A. J. Keeling, Cottingley, B ingley, exhibited Lselia X Diana 

 (L. purpurata X L. Dayana). 



TWO NEW NATURAL HYBRIDS. 



In The Garden for September 13th (p. 182) we observe an account of two- 

 new natural hybrids, from the collection of R. H. Measures, Esq., The 

 Woodlands, Streatham, by " Argutus." The first is called Laelio-cattleya 

 X Philip Stokes, and its parents are given as Laelio-cattleya X elegans 

 and Cattleya Leopoldi ; the second is called L.-c. X Queen Alexandra,, 

 from L.-c. X Schilleriana and Lselia purpurata. " The wonder is," remarks 

 the writer," considering the length of time that Laelio-cattleya X elegans,. 

 Schilleriana, and Laelia purpurata have been imported and cultivated, 

 that the presence of this and the preceding hybrid has not previously been 

 known or suspected, as it is quite reasonable to suppose that as we have 

 natural hybrids between Cattleya Leopoldi, Lzelia purpurata and Cattleya 

 intermedia, these hybrids must in some cases, and as the two above- 

 mentioned now prove, have crossed between themselves and with the 

 parent species. There can be no doubt as to the correctness of the parents 

 ascribed, as, fortunately, flowers of the true L.-c. X Schilleriana were at 

 hand for comparison." 



We should like to be able to compare these two plants with some of the 

 numerous and varied forms of Laelio-cattleya X elegans and Schilleriana 

 that are already known, for it is by no means clear that similar forms have 

 not already appeared, nor yet that the writer is correct in his interpretation 

 of their descent. Of course it is quite possible that there may be secondary 

 hybrids in the group named, but when only two species are concerned in 

 the parentage, how are they to be recognised ? According to the above 

 argument, " L.-c. X Philip Stokes " is made up of Cattleya Leopoldi 

 three-fourths, and Laelia purpurata one-fourth ; and " L.-c. X Queen 

 Alexandra " of L. purpurata three-fourths and C. intermedia one-fourth, but 

 there are many primary hybrids in which the dominance of the one parent 

 is so pronounced that were their origin unknown one might assume that the 

 parentage was in something like the above-named proportions. It may be 



