THE ORCHID REVIEW. 67 
Intending exhibitors should apply at once for particulars to the Secretary, 
M. Lubbers, Botanic Garden, Brussels. 
There are also numerous prizes for Orchids at the Hamburg Horticul- 
tural Exhibition from May Ist to 7th, and August 27th to September 5th. 
Particulars may be obtained from the Committee. 
a ee 
EULOPHIELLA PEETERSIANA., 
A FEW plants of a remarkable Orchid received from Madagascar by M. A. 
A. Peters, of St. Gilles, Brussels, were recently offered for sale by Messrs. 
F. Sander & Co., St. Albans. M. Mocoris, the collector, describes it as a 
plant of absolutely incontestable beauty, the flower stems over a yard high, 
and bearing 20 to 25 flowers, which are 2% inches across, the sepals and 
petals violaceous, and the lip violet with a golden yellow spot at the base. 
The stem, which alone I have seen, reminds me of Grammatophyllum 
rather than of Eulophiella, and I should not be surprised to find that it 
belongs to some other genus, but this point must be left until flowers are 
forthcoming, either in a dried or living state. And here is a hint for M. 
Mocoris—and others whom it may concern. When he finds a remarkable 
Orchid of this kind, let him not content himself with a few words of descrip. 
tion. If he cannot dry a specimen, he should at least put a flower or two in 
his pocket-book, folded in a piece of blotting paper, and send them home 
together with the plants. This would enable us to form a much better idea 
of the value of his discovery. cA 
DIES ORCHIDIANA. 
My remarks about Cypripedium x Lilian Greenwood at page 41 have 
called forth the following note from Mr. Greenwood :—‘‘ When I exhibited 
Cypripedium x Lilian Greenwood on January 12th, I did not give the 
parentage, so it is hardly fair for ‘Argus’ to blame the Committee for 
allowing the name to pass. I bought the plant as a very small seedling in 
June, 1895, the parentage given being bellatulum x Leeanum superbum, 
but I am not sure that this is correct.”—-Hy. GREENWOOD, Highfield, 
Haslingden, near Manchester. 
I was aware from the contradictory records about this plant that the 
parentage was somewhat doubtful, yet I took the definite statement by ‘ J. 
A.” (see Gard. Chron., Jan. 16, p. 35) as reliable. However, the members 
of the Orchid Committee could not have seen that note until afterwards, 
and in view of Mr. Greenwood’s note I will excuse them—just this once, 
