THE ORCHID REVIEW. 47 
comparing it with all the possible parents, I discovered what I believe 
explains the difficulty. It is not the characters of L. autumnalis that are 
represented, but of the allied though quite distinct L. furfuracea. The 
broad petals, and trace of mealiness on the keels, as well as the fewer 
flowers and general aspects of the plant are precisely those of a cross 
between L. furfuracea and L. albida, from which I believe it was derived. 
It is very rare. 
5. L. xX EYERMANIANA, Rchb. f.—We now have to deal with a very 
interesting form which appeared with Messrs. F. Sander and Co., St. 
Albans, in 1888. It flowered out of an importation of L. grandiflora 
(majalis), which it closely resembles in its vegetative organs. L. autumnalis 
was said to have been seen in the same place, and these two were suggested 
as the probable parents. In September, 1890, it flowered in a clump of the 
former species in the collection of F. Wigan, Esq., Clare Lawn, East 
Sheen, its presence being previously unsuspected. Another appeared with 
G. le Doux, Esq., East Molesey, about the same time, while a month later 
one flowered with Signor R. Mercatelli, of Florence, this time being labelled 
L. albida. Mr. James Crispin, of Bristol, also flowered a plant during the 
same autumn. In 1893 Messrs. Fred Horsman and Co., Colchester, secured 
some plants, one of which flowered with Sir William Marriott, after whom 
it was provisionally named. A number were sold and passed into several 
collections, but ultimately proved not to be distinct. Some were said to 
resemble: L. albida crosses, but all to have the blood of L. majalis, with 
which they appeared. On examining a number of plants, some of which 
flowered at Kew, I find the most unmistakable evidence of a descent from 
L. majalis and L. albida. The plants vary somewhat, as hybrids ee 
do, but are evidently forms of one and the same hybrid. 
6. L. veNusTA.—The one remaining form which I include here is a rare 
and beautiful one. It appeared with Messrs. James Backhouse and Sons, 
of York, and was described as L. autumnalis var. venusta, Rchb.f. The 
plant was acquired by W. Lee, Esq., of Leatherhead, but a second piece 
passed into the collection of the late A. Wilson, Esq., Westbrook, Sheffield. 
A few years ago a similar form appeared with A. Sillem, Esq., Laurie Park, 
Sydenham. Then came a plant, which Reichenbach suggested might be a 
hybrid between L. autumnalis and L. furfuracea, called L. autumnalis var. 
xanthotropis, Rchb. f., which flowered with Messrs. F. Sander and Co., St. 
Albans, whose origin appears to be the same. The influence of L. furfuracea 
is apparent enough, but I believe that L. majalis was the second parent. 
The resemblances to it and to the preceding hybrid are too great to be over- 
looked, while the few larger flowers and general aspect of the plant are more 
in agreement. The suggested relationship to L. autumnalis must I think 
be abandoned. 
It will be seen that one or two new ideas are brought out in the above, 
