THE ORCHID REVIEW. 939 
The descriptions are in Latin, with copious notes in German, and the 
usual references to descriptions, figures, and geographical distribution. The 
work commences with the tribe Apostasiee—the preliminary heading 
‘“‘ Diandre ”’ not being explained—and is chiefly based on Mr. Rolfe’s 
revision, published in the Journal of the Linnean Society in 1888, though the 
same author’s more recent paper, at pages 327 and 363 of our last volume 
are not mentioned. In the same way the figure of Neuwiedia veratrifolia 
(Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 1987) is completely overlooked, but a reference to these 
papers would have prevented the suppression of N. Lindleyi as a species. 
Conversely, the inclusion of Tupistra singapureana as a synomym of N. 
Curtisii might surely have been omitted, in spite of Ridley’s remark about 
the identity of the two, and the fruit being ‘‘a succulent scarlet berry, 
looking at first sight like the fruit of a Dracena.’’ It is easy to see that this 
fruit does not belong to an Orchid, and no evidence is yet adduced to show 
that it is not a Liliaceous plant, belonging to the genus Tupistra, as hitherto 
supposed. The remark that Neuwiedia singapureana should be the proper 
name of this plant requires no further comment. N. Curtisii and N. 
Zollingeri, in the Key, are separated from the other species by the two 
characters ‘‘ Racemus capitatus—Fructus carnosuli,”” but the former is as 
certainly as the latter is presumably erroneous. Coming to the genus Apostasia 
we find A. Lobbii inserted in its wrong place in the Key, and A. latifolia 
altogether omitted, though it is included in the enumeration. The 
character given of the former is erroneous, and the note need not have been 
written, as a reference to the only published figure—which, however, is not 
-cited—would have shown. 
The tribe Cypripediez we find reduced to the single genus Cypripedium 
(the omission of all reference to Mr. Rolfe’s paper on the Cypripedium group 
has already been mentioned) of which six sections are recognised, namely, 
Calceolaria, Selenipedium, Lorifolia, Caudata, Barbata, Concoloria, and 
Insignia. |The two former are equivalent to Cypripedium and Selenipedium 
as limited in the paper just mentioned, and Lorifolia would be equivalent 
to Phragmipedium if the species Boissierianum, Czerwiakowianum, 
caricinum and caudatum, were not taken away from their allies and united 
(or mixed!) with Stonei, Parishii, philippinense, Roebelenii, Sarderianum, 
and Rothschildianum, to form a new and purely artificial section Caudata. 
Klotzschianum, which would be looked for here, is omitted, except for a 
casual remark in the note under caricinum. Thisin turn is followed by new 
complications, for Elliottianum (a mere synonym of Rothschildianum) 
Lowi, Haynaldianum and glanduliferum, which unquestionably belong to 
the same group as Parishii and philippinense, are turned over into the set 
with tessellated leaves, here called Barbata, which, however, includes C. 
dilectum, a mere synonym of C. Boxallii, a member of the group Insignia,— 
