240 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
Epicattleya, Phalanthe and Phaio-calanthe, Sophroleya and Sophro- 
cattleya, and, lastly, Zygolax and Zygocolax, in all of which the author 
supersedes the original genus by a name of his own, yet citing the 
original reference to his own new name, leaving the unfortunate reader 
to find out the blunder as best he. may, not to mention the wholesale 
addition of useless synonyms. The author again indulges in some new 
generic names, Epiphaius and Phabletia; which simply indicate that apparent 
crosses have been effected between Phaius and Epidendrum and between 
Phaius and Bletia. One would have thought that his previous creation 
of Odopetalum, to commemorate the fact that seedlings raised “ between 
Zygopetalum Mackayi and several Odontoglossa have turned out be simple - 
Zyg. Mackayi,’’ would have furnished an awful warning against such 
perpetrations ; instead of which we now find (p. 329) :—‘‘ Odopetalum X 
Heathii (Zgp. Mackayi xX Od. species?) G. Ch., Dec. 19, “96, p. 766, 
col. a, &c.,”” which, judging by the record, seems equally visionary. In 
view of the fact that some half-dozen other remarkable generic crosses 
have recently been recorded in the Review, it seems necessary to point 
out to Mr. Hansen that the creation of new genera in this fashion is 
altogether unwarranted. It is only when such crosses flower, and one is 
able to judge whether a bona fide cross has been effected that such names 
should be given. To experiment is one thing, but to attain success is 4 
very different matter, and even the production of seedlings is not always 
proof that a cross has been effected, as we have already seen, and we 
strongly advise the author to conform to the usual practice in these cases. 
Records under Cypripedium cover forty pages, or rather more than half 
the work, though some of them are of little value, for example:— 
“Cypripedium X Eucharis. Also raised, apparently from foot-note O. R., 
Jan., 97, p. 32, by W. J. R., Maghull,” but on turning up the reference we 
only find this to be a possible determination of a flower sent for name. It 
seems rather a pity that the author does not confine himself to definite 
records. A plea in favour of completeness cannot be urged, for the only 
record under C. Charlesworthii is a single cross, with C. insigne, ‘ under 
raising with Berkeley, Southampton,” but others have been recorded, and 
probably no Cypripedium has been so generally used by hybridists since 
its introduction. The authority for C. virens, we may also point out, 
Rchb. f., not Rolfe, as given at page 283. 
We hope that neither the author nor our readers will mistake the abject 
of these remarks, for we can appreciate fully the utility of a concise record 
of the scattered information on the subject, and the amount of pains taken 
in getting it pastes and i in conclusion we would remark that it forms a _ 
most useful addit io nd —— Lieto work on the — 
