12 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
of the pseudobulbs having one and others two leaves, as in the latter, but 
the psuedobulbs taller and more elongated, thus approaching C. Loddigesii. 
The flowers also are about intermediate, having the side lobes of the lip 
reduced in size, which shows the influence of C. dolosa, as well as a certain 
approach to it in the general aspect of the flower, though, on the other 
hand, the shape of C. Loddigesii is equally apparent, and both the light 
whitish-yellow disc of the lip and the small purple spots of the sepals and 
petals are present in C. x O’Brieniana. Thus the evidence seems fairly 
conclusive. Had I known the history of the plant from the outset, and 
been able to compare it with each of the supposed parents, its hybrid origin 
might have been suspected before. It is a very interesting and pretty little 
plant. R. A. RoirFe. 
DIES ORCHIDIANZ. 
“‘ CATTLEYA guttata Prinzii, Viscount de Figueiredo, new var.,” is the name 
which has been given to a handsome Cattleya which has appeared in the 
collection of the Right Hon. Lord Rothschild at Tring Park. It is rather 
a puzzle, I confess, and the only conclusion I can arrive at is that it is a 
variety of a variety—perhaps a subvariety is what is intended. But I cannot 
help thinking that such inordinately attenuated names are quite unnecessary. 
Besides which, there is the further question whether the name is not 
incorrect. I have twice recently seen it stated that Reichenbach’s Cattleya 
guttata Prinzii is not a variety of C. guttata at all, but the Cattleya 
amethystoglossa of the same author, which the published figures certainly 
confirm. This simplifies the matter considerably, without, however, shorten- 
ing the name much. The new variety seems to differ in having a ‘distinctly 
yellow ” ground instead of white, just as the variety rosea differs in having 
it light rose-colour. It is a great pity that varieties cannot be indicated by 
the addition of a single name. 
And while on the subject, there is another perplexing nomenclature ques- 
tion that may be mentioned, namely, the changing of names for no apparent 
reason. The other day The Gardeners’ Chronicle gave an account of an 
abnormal flower of Cypripedium x Canhamiz, which, so far as I can 
ascertain, is the plant described a few years ago as C. x Mrs. Canham. 
But the very same week they recorded Cattleya labiata Peetersii, described 
in THE OrcHID REVIEW (ii. p. 78) as C. labiata Peeter’s variety, though 
it was exhibited under its correct name, as recorded in your Report. On 
what principle the English should be latinised in one case, and the Latin 
anglicised in the other, I fail to understand. A different example is furnished 
by Cypripedium x Millmani, exhibited by the raiser, A. J. Hollington, Esq,, 
