THE ORCHID REVIEW. 239 
attempted, only once successfully. The story of Cypripedium Curtisii being 
artificially raised by crossing C. ciliolare with the pollen of C. superbiens is 
told, but the author, while giving the two references correctly, changes the 
pollen parent to ““C. Dayanum.” The idea of the Bornean C. nigritum 
being a natural hybrid between C. barbatum from Malacca and C. pur- 
puratum from Hong Kong is absurd, and the note about its not being alive in 
Europe remarkable after the history of the plant given at page 79 of the last 
volume of this work. But enough has been said to indicate the nature of 
the work, and space forbids us to proceed further. 
The Orchid Hybrids. By GEORGE HANSEN. Second Supplement. 
G. Hansen, Berkeley, California. 
A second supplement to the above work has now appeared—the first 
formed pages 247-257 of the work itself, and only differed in being printed 
on one side of the paper, so that those who cared to have the book 
interleaved could cut it up and paste the slips down opposite their 
respective pages. The second supplement, “recording knowledge gained 
about Orchid Hybrids in the period from October 15, 1895, to April 1, 
1897,” carries the work up to page 334, and is arranged upon the same 
plan, so that many of the remarks made at page 8 of our last volume 
apply to the present addition, the chief alterations noticed being a re- 
arrangement of the synonymy in some cases. The work, as before, seems 
to be very thoroughly done, almost too much so in some cases, for example 
(page 264) :—‘‘Catlelia x Ino. Who knows record of such supposed 
Ctl.?” The use of such a record we fail to see, for there is not the 
slightest indication that the name has been previously published, and one 
is left to assume that in some way Mr. Hansen has heard of such a 
‘supposed’? name. The old question of Catlelia confronts one on the very 
first page, and we must again point out that the proper name for hybrids 
between Lelia and Cattleya is Lelio-cattleya, a name which has been 
accepted and used for years, and that such names as Catlelia x Darwiniana, 
x Elsteadensis, &c., have no existence outside Mr. Hansen’s book, where 
they are created apparently for the purpose of being knocked on the head, 
being there enumerated as ‘‘synonyms.” Lelio-cattleya x Darwiniana, 
x Elsteadensis, &c., we know, but they find no place in the work. Or 
take ‘“ Catlelia x Ghislainie (LI. harpophylla ¢ x Ct. amethystoglossa). 
Imschoot, Gand. sown ’89, one plant only. First Ctl. raised in Belgium. 
O. R., Feb. ’96; p. 39... This is apparently a concise history of the plant, 
but on turning to the page cited we find the name to be Lzlio-cattleya 
x Ghislainiz. And this is the erroneous way in which all forms of this 
hybrid genus are treated. The same remarks apply to Epileya and 
