228 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
DIES ORCHIDIAN. 
A CORRESPONDENT alludes to the ‘“‘variety question,’ which he thinks 
ought to be taken seriously in hand. I quite agree with his remarks, and 
will attempt to deal with one or two of the points raised. First, ‘‘ What 
is Cattleya Mossize Wagner’s variety? Is it C. Mossi Wageneri? And, 
if so, is the new name any improvement? If the latter be conceded, why 
not Lelia pumila Day’s variety, and Cattleya guttata Leopold’s variety, 
and Prinz’s variety, and Lzlio-cattleya x elegans Mrs. Wolstenholm’s 
variety?” Ah! I see my correspondent has been looking at the List of 
Hybrid Cattleyas, and I must admit his questions are posers. I give it up. 
But I have previously alluded to similar cases, and could quickly lay hands 
on dozens of others. For example, Reinecke’s variety of Cattleya Mossie, 
Blunt's variety of C. Mendelii, or Provost Russell’s variety of C. Trianz. 
Are they improvements on C. Mossiz Reineckeana, C. Mendelii Blunti, 
and C. Triane Russelliana? If so, why not carry the improvement a little 
further, and say Reinecke’s variety of Mrs. Moss’s Cattleya? &c., &c. 
Fancy reading of the white variety of the lipped Cattleya, or the sulphur 
variety of the whitish Lelia! And why not the noble Dendrobium, the 
distinguished Cypripedium, or the crisped Odontoglossum? Probably 
everybody would know what was meant. They are merely translations into 
the vernacular, and if the thing is good in itself, why not carry it out a little 
further ? But then, one can have too much of a good thing, and I should 
imagine that a little of this would go a long way. 
The next question is worse. ‘‘ What is the difference,” it runs, 
“ between Cattleya Mossie Mr. Smith’s variety, C. M. Mrs. De Brown, 
C. M. J. L. Jones, and C. M. Miss Flora Mary Robinson?” (I have 
altered the names for obvious reasons.) It appears that all have been 
recently exhibited and recorded in the gardening papers, though the 
descriptions given hardly enable one to identify them. For example, one 
was very fine, another of exceptional colour, a third exquisitely shaped, 
while of the fourth the name only is recorded. And, to crown all, the 
Orchid Review did not even record the names. It is certainly a little hard 
on my correspondent, but I regret to say that I cannot help him out of the 
difficulty. It must be left for the writer of the next monograph. ‘ The 
varieties of Cattleya Mossiz, and how to distinguish them,’’ would be a 
very taking title, and, if judiciously managed, the work might be compressed 
into the space of a couple of volumes or so, with others to follow. 
My enterprising correspondent has a stock of these queries on hand, and 
now only sends a few by way of sample. The two remaining ones are less 
profound, and can soon be dismissed. It appears that on two or three 
