THE ORCHID REVIEW. 163 
Jersey, writes to say that a beautiful spike of Eulophiella Elisabethe has 
appeared in the collection under his charge, with twenty-eight open 
flowers, but that all we have said respecting it is correct. 
The Journal des Orchidées again reverts to our remarks on Eulophiella as 
a quibble about a microscopic difference. It has been shown that the 
difference between the Lindenia plate and the actual flowers is little short 
of 33 per cent, which hardly requires the aid of a microscope to see. If 
figures of Orchids are to be of any use to those who have occasion to 
consult them, it is important that they should be as accurate as possible, 
and this alone caused our remarks. The example chosen is not by any 
means an isolated one. 
We learn that the second edition of Mr. H. A. Burberry’s Amateur 
Orchid Cultivator’s Guide Book is in course of preparation, and will be issued 
some time next month. It has been revised throughout, and several new 
features introduced which will increase its usefulness. We shall have 
occasion to notice it in a future number. 
ERGO es 
LAELIA GRANDIFLORA. 
An exceptionally fine flower of Lelia grandiflora, or L. majalis, to quote 
its later and better-known name, is sent by E. H. Woodall, Esq., 5t. 
Nicholas House, Scarborough, who remarks that if the extreme simplicity 
of its culture were realised it would be much sought after. The plant has 
been for years hung close to the glass in a Muscat Vinery, where it is very 
dry and cool in winter, and warm from the middle of March until the 
Muscats ripen. The flower sent affords evidence of the success of the 
treatment. It measures 6% inches from tip to tip of the petals, these organs 
being 2} inches broad, and the front lobe of the lip 1§ inches broad. 
Sometimes the scapes are two-flowered. 
The nomenclature of this beautiful species has been so much confused 
that it seems desirable to point out how completely the original name has 
been lost sight of. When, in 1831, Lindley founded the Bemus Lelia (Gen. 
and Sp. Orch., p. 115), two species only were known to him, namely Bletia 
grandiflora and B. autumnalis (Llav. e Lex. Nov. Gen. Descr., Orch. Opusc., 
pp. 17 and 19), and in each case the original specific hates were conserved 
in the new genus. The former, however, was evidently mpknown to 
Lindley, for on the very next page (116) he again described it under 
the name of Cattleya Grahami, from a Mexican specimen collected by 
Graham. In 1839 he again described it as Lalia majalis (Lindl. — Reg : 
XXV., Misc., p. 35), from specimens sent to the Horticultural cae 
by Hartweg, who found it on the mountains near Leon, at 8000 feet 
elevation, where it occasionally freezes in winter. It is said to be the Flor 
