238 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
which, together with Concoloria, awaits a future part. The latter group 
can scarcely give any trouble, but the remark that Insignia only contains 
one species with marmorate leaves, namely C. venustum, shows that this 
group has not altogether escaped, for C. venustum certainly belongs to the 
Barbata group. C. Chamberlainianum and C. Victoria-Marie are 
presumably reserved for the Insignia, but are more nearly allied to.C. 
Parishii than to any member of the latter group. 
It would be very easy to carry these criticisms much further, and ask 
how it is that C. fasciolatum, and its near ally C. macranthum, have 
wandered inte separate groups, while room can-be found with the latter for 
such a different plant as C. humile? And if for this why not for other allied 
diphyllous species? Why is C. humile preferred to the older name C. 
acaule? What has become of C. Regine and C. album, both older names 
of C. spectabile? Why are not C. thibeticum and C. himalaicum more 
worthy of recognition than C. Thunbergii? And, assuming that a natural 
arrangement is aimed at, how is it that such very closely allied species as C. 
superbiens, Curtisii and C. ciliolare can be separated by such distinct ones as 
C. Dayanum, Mastersianum, and others, or why Curtisii and dilectum 
should be sandwiched in between C. Mastersianum and its near ally C. 
Hookere ? The fact is many species are placed right away from their 
nearest allies. 
The references are no happier. Take the very first in the book :— 
“ Apostasiee R. Br. 1830 Wall. Pl. Asiat. rar. I. 74; Lindley 1833; 
Endlicher Genera (1837) 220; Meissner (1842) Genera 387.”’; and then com- 
pare “ Cypripedium Schlimii Batem. Bot. Mag. t. 5614.—Selmipedium 
Schlimii Rehb. f. Bonplandia II. 277.—Pescatorea t. 34.—Xenia Orch. t. 
44. Flores des Serres t. 1917. de Puydt Orchidéet t. 12.” with “ Cypripedium 
debile Rchb. f. Xenia Vot. II. 333- Cypriped. cardiophyllum Franchet et 
Savat. II, 251; Soméku dusets XVIII letzte Tafel.”” Where are the stops? 
What is the system? And whatever can some of it mean? We find *‘ Journ. 
Linn. Soc. XXV.,” “Vol. XXV,” 25,” “Vol. 25,” ‘‘ Bd. 25,” and actually 
“38. and. 48,” all referring to the self-same volume, with the further 
variations ‘“‘ Vol. 25 (1888)”’ and ““ XXV (1890) **; besides which the page 
given is wrong in four cases, and the figures are omitted under four of the 
species, though included in two others. “Lindl. Genera u Sp.” and ‘ Lindl. 
Orch.”’ (with other variations) refer to the same work. Barton FI. N. 
Amer. is given as “ Paxt. FI. Gard.” and Blume Coll. Archip. Ind. more 
than once as “Blume Flora Jave,”’ a quite different work. The 
checking of a few references soon revealed a number of errors, and 
several examples occur in the above citations, and further examples of 
the careless way in which the proofs have been read may be seen in 
“ Mesodatylus " and ‘‘ Mecodactylus ”’ for Mesodactylus, a word three times 
