78 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
(c) Both parents themselves hybrids (see also Nos. 12-14). 
Hysrips. 9 PARENT. 3 PARENT Ralser. 
23. S. x Coppinianum Sedenii Chachiferiin. Seeder. 
24- S. x pulchellum grande d Sint Aidul Vanier 
25. 5. x Elsteadianum conchiferum Stine Ingram. 
Several points are brought out prominently in Tables I. and II., one of 
the first being that the pretty little S. Schlimii has been crossed with all the 
six species which have been brought within the range of the hybridist, either 
directly or through their several varieties, and in most cases with the happiest 
results. There are two other species in cultivation which may yet be added 
to the list, namely, S. Klotzschianum and §. Sargentianum. Another point 
is the important part played by S. x Sedenij and its varieties. This hybrid 
was originally obtained from both S. longifolium crossed with S. Schlimii 
and the reverse cross; then it was again used in combination with each of 
the parents and their varieties, giving rise to a series of secondary hybrids, 
which have again been variously combined, yntil they form a series practi- 
cally confluent, which might almost be considered as varieties of the original 
S. x Sedenii. The whole series here grouped under numbers 2 and 10 to 
14 are simply combinations of S. longifolium, §. Schlimii, and their varieties. 
And taking the remainder of the secondary hybrids we find that some form 
of S. x longifolio-Schlimii has been used as one parent in a majority of cases. 
It will also be observed that in six cases both parents are themselves of 
hybrid origin, though three of them belong to the longifolio-Schlimii group 
just mentioned. Finally, we note how great are the possibilities of future 
work. Some crosses are not worth making, from a florist’s standpoint, but 
there are many that are—indeed some are already made, and as the seedlings 
are gradually progressing towards the flowering stage, a continuous addition 
to the list may be anticipated. 
With respect to parentage, great care has been taken to keep the list 
correct, so far as the original records go, but this point has not always been 
stated, or even known, in which case later records have been utilised. 
Differences of opinion may be expressed with regard to the arrangement of 
varieties, and we may therefore remark that the principle followed has been 
that of considering hybrids derived from forms of the same species as 
varieties of one, as for example, S. x Seédenii. No attempt has been made 
to separate reversed crosses, as in many cases it cannot be done. Other 
points will probably explain themselves. 
TABLE III. List OF HYBRIDS WITH RepgreNcES AND SYNONYMY. 
a. <& VUNIQUE. ©. x L’Unique, Grrr, Rev, i. p. 318 
. S. X SEDENI, Rchb. f. in Gard. Chron., 1873, p. 1431 Gin” note) ; /d,, rth ii. pp. 596, 
597, ute 117-18 (peloria). C. x Sedenii, Rchb. Pree Fl. Mag., n.s., 1876, t. 206; Id., Ne 
t. 302 ; Gartenfi., xxiv. pp. 149, 150, with fig. ; 77, xxyi. pp. 85, 86, with ie Jenn. Orth 
4; Puydt Orch., p. 265, t. 13 ; Orchidophile, in p. 179, with fig.; Veitch Man. per " 
iv. pp. 105, 106, with fig. 
