296 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
What became of the specimens thus alluded to is not on record, so far 
as we know, but as the species belong to the list of intractables, one can 
only surmise that they failed to establish themselves. It would be interest-: 
ing to know what has become of the plants which have already flowered in 
cultivation. The one in the collection of H. Gaskell, Esq., was mentioned 
at page 321 of our first volume as grown in an eight-inch pot, in a mixture 
of rough peat, cow manure, crocks, charcoal, and sand, in a stove tempera- 
ture, with abundance of water when growing, but kept dust dry when at — 
rest. The spike was 9} feet high, and bore thirty-six flowers, so that it had 
not nearly attained the dimensions recorded of the plant in a wild state. 
CATTLEYA WARSCEWICZII. 
THE history of this handsome Cattleya was given at page 299 of our 
second volume, where its identity with the much later C. gigas was 
pointed out. A recent note by J. A. (Gard. Chron., Sept. 4, p. 154) 
suggesting or doubt as to the correctness of this determination, therefore 
calls for a word of comment. The note runs:—‘‘ What a beautiful thing 
Cattleya gigas is! After seeing Warner's Select Orchidaceous Plants, 1st 
number, we cannot think of calling it Warscewiczii!’? Now the figure 
here alluded to (ser. 1, t. 4) is called C. Warscewiczii var. delicata, 
T. Moore, and represents a plant from the collection of the late Robert 
Warner, which is said to have been introduced from Brazil (this is 
erroneous) by Messrs. Backhouse and Son, of York, under the name of 
C. Trianz, under which name it was distributed. The earliest note about 
it (T. Moore in Proc. Roy. Hort. Soc., ii., p. 121) speaks of it as being 
exhibited in fine condition at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural 
Society, at South Kensington, in February last, by Mr. Milford, gardener 
to E. M’Morland, Esq., by whom it was received and grown under the 
name of C. Triane, “under which name” the note goes on to remark, 
“it is known in many gardens.”. As a matter of fact this plant is the 
light-coloured C. Trianz delicata, and does not belong to C. Warscewiczii 
at all. Moore also figured the self-same plant as a distinct species, 
under the name of C. Rollissonii (Fl. Mag. i., t. 8). His views on the 
subject were unfortunate, for three varieties of C. Trianz which received 
First-class Certificates from the Royal Horticultural Society, as recorded 
in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1868, p. 240), were all erroneously given in the 
Florist and Pomologist (1868, p. 93), as varieties of C. Warscewiczii, as 
pointed out at page 114 of our third volume. It is unfortunate that these 
old errors should keep cropping up, but there is a vitality about them which 
is simply appalling. 
