3 2 4 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



lights and projecting the images together by means of a triple lantern ; 

 (b) by obtaining three positives with suitable dyes, and superposing them to 

 form an ordinary lantern slide ; (c) by making three typographic blocks, 

 and printing from them in coincidence with inks of suitable colours." 

 Examples of each kind were shown. There was also a remarkable exhibit 

 by Messrs. Sanger Shepherd & Co., of Natural Colour Photography, with 

 examples of its applications and the necessary appliances (including 

 photographs of Orchids and other flowers) ; while Prof. H. A. Miers, 

 F.R.S., exhibited some collotype prints, prepared at the Oxford University 

 Press, showing the beautiful colour effects of the polarisation of light 

 produced by certain crystals. 



INCORRECT RECORDS. 



A short time ago a correspondent wrote asking the question as to how 

 incorrect records should be dealt with. We replied that the only practical 

 method which we could suggest was to correct them as soon as a mistake 

 was discovered. The question, however, is not so simple as it looks. The 

 case specially put forward was this. A raises a hybrid Orchid, names it, 

 and states what he considers to be its parentage, these particulars all being 

 recorded. Unfortunately the alleged parentage is erroneous, though the 

 mistake is not detected. B afterwards raises a bona fide hybrid from the 

 two species in question, and also names it. The methodical recorder, C, 

 now comes along, and says, " Oh ! this was raised years ago by A," and 

 accordingly changes the name. Meantime A's plant has been lost sight of, 

 perhaps found to be only a synonym of some older form, but the fact 

 unrecorded. C may not have seen A's plant at all ; had he done so he 

 might have detected the mistake, and thus have avoided the confusion 

 involved by his alteration of B's name. Ultimately he does come into 

 possession of all the facts, and the question arises should he then try to 

 put things straight ? We see no reason to modify the answer given above. 

 We may now give an example of the way some of these mistakes arise. 

 In reporting the last R.H.S. meeting at the Drill Hall, the Gardeners' 

 Chronicle records (page 313) :— " Cypripedium X Francis Heygate (Charles- 

 worthii X Mastersianum)." Fortunately we saw this plant at the meeting 

 in question, and discussed it with several other Orchidists. In the first 

 place there was a " ? " prominently attached to the record of parentage 

 (we cannot say who placed it there), and in the second place we 

 unanimously agreed that it was a small form of C. X Crossianum, the 

 characters of C. venustum and C. insigne being quite obvious. It now 

 vhat will happen when a bona fide hybrid between C. 

 1 appears. 



Charlesworthii and C. 



