114 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
CATTLEYA TRIANZ AND ITS VARIETIES. 
AT page 49 of our first volume we gave an account of the history, and some 
of the principal varieties of this popular winter-flowering Cattleya, with a 
list of figures, and since then we have received a large number of flowers 
with requests for names. Owing to the almost universal interest felt in this 
matter, we have tried to bring together a complete list, which we now offer 
to our readers in the hope that it may enable them to identify their plants 
with, at all events, some degree of accuracy. The advantage of having such 
a list will be obvious to everyone, though it must be understood as to a 
certain extent provisional only, and it would probably have taken a some- 
what different form, could we have compared a flower of each variety named. 
In all probability some have been lost sight of, and others may have been re- 
named—indeed it appears certain that this has taken place in several 
instances, though to what extent can only be guessed at, owing to the im- 
perfect way in which many varieties have been described. One or two 
examples will serve to illustrate this point. In 1868 three varieties, Cleopatra, - 
Juno, and tricolor, each received a First-class Certificate from the Royal 
Horticultural Society, the fact being recorded in the Gardeners’ Chronicle 
without any note of their characters. As the Society’s Journal failed to 
throw light on the subject, we turned to the Florist and Pomologist, and found 
them recorded as varieties of C. Warscewiczii, and the error has been re- 
peated in the “List of Garden Orchids.” Two years later the variety 
Lawrenceana received a similar award, and one report described the colour 
of the sepals and petals only, while another confined its remarks to the lip, 
the two, fortunately, supplementing each other. 
_ With regard to the arrangement followed, one or two explanatory 
remarks are necessary. In the first place an attempt has been made to 
give a classified list, beginning with the more typical forms, and gradually 
passing to the more extreme ones. This is by far the most useful arrange- 
ment, as it enables one immediately to ascertain the affinity of any 
given form, though to be perfect it would require to be drawn up from a 
comparison of each variety. This being impossible, we have made no 
attempt to reduce the list, though so far as the descriptions go, some of the 
varieties appear to be almost or quite identical. We may be able to revise 
the list on a future occasion, and should be much obliged if those who 
possess named varieties would forward a flower for comparison, as only by 
this means can the subject be rescued from the confusion into which it has 
undoubtedly fallen. And we also express the hope that before additional 
varieties are named, this list will be consulted, in order that unnecessary 
additions may be avoided. It would be a safe rule to follow not to name 
any variety unless it shows some marked deviation which can be defined in 
intelligible language, slight variations in size and colour must always occur, 
and it might almost be said that no two forms are exactly alike in every 
