THE ORCHID REVIEW. 133 
The stouter Burmese form was introduced by Messrs. Hugh Low and 
Co., in 1875, and was figured and described as D. Wardianum var. Lowii 
(FI. Mag., n.s., 1876, t. 212), and afterwards as D. W. giganteum (Orchid 
Album iii., t. 113). This is the popular D. Wardianum of gardens, the 
slender Assam or typical form being much less frequently seen. 
The variety candidum (Rchb. f. in Gard. Chron., 1876, i., p. 460) which 
appeared in the collection of O. O. Wrigley, Esq., of Bury, has pure white 
flowers, with the exception of the usual yellow disc and the two eye-like 
brown spots. 
The variety album (Orchid Album x., t. 450) appeared in the rich 
collection of W. R. Lee, Esq., of Audenshaw, in 1891, and differs from the 
preceding in having lost the brown spots, the yellow disc alone remaining. 
It has since been named variety Lindeniz (Lindenia iv., p. 73, t- 419), on its 
appearance with Messrs. Linden three years later. 
The Burmese form grows intermixed with D. crassinode and hybridises 
with it, giving rise to the beautiful D. x crassinodi-Wardianum, which was 
figured at page 177 of our last volume. 
——_—_>-4——___-—— 
* 
CCGELOGYNE HUETTNERIANA. 
This pretty little Ccelogyne is now flowering in various collections, 
though in several cases under other names, hence it is advisable to place a 
few notes of its history on record. It is a native of Moulmein, and the 
next ally of the Himalayan C. flaccida, of which it is the geographical 
representative. It may be readily distinguished, however, by its shorter 
and broader leaves, and by some slight differences in the details of the 
flower, the Moulmein plant having also a rather stouter and less drooping 
inflorescence. It was described by Reichenbach in 1872 (Flora, lv. p. 277) 
from a specimen sent from Misna, in Saxony, by one Hiittner, after whom 
it was named. The locality was only vaguely indicated as E. Indies, but 
Reichenbach afterwards determined specimens collected in Moulmein by 
the Rev. E. C. Parish to be the same, stating that the latter had given the 
MSS. name of C. elegans to the plant. Under this name it was distributed, 
and in some collections is cultivated to the present day. Some thirteen 
years later it was unfortunately again described by Reichenbach as C. lactea 
(Gard. Chron., 1885, i., p. 692), from materials sent by the late "John Day, 
but three years later, on receiving specimens from Major Lendy, the author 
remarked (Gard. Chron., 1888, i., p. 521) that he was not very sure if 
Parish’s drawing might not belong to this. After comparing the drawing 
and a good series of specimens I have no doubt that all belong to one and 
the same species, as no difference whatever can be detected, and the above 
name should therefore be adopted. 
. R. A. R. 
