THE ORCHID REVIEW. 299 
CYPRIPEDIUM KIMBALLIANUM. 
WE had hoped that the vexed question of Cypripedium Kimballianum (see 
pp. 238, 271) was now settled, but Mr. J. O’Brien returns to it in the 
Gardeners’ Chronicle for Sept. 14 (p. 292), and states—(1) that it would be 
well if the writer gave a reference to the work in which the first C. 
Kimballianum appeared ; (2) that it appears to be straining matters to drop 
the specific name, and thus set up a bogey in order to have the honour of 
knocking it down again; (3) that there was no excuse for bringing in the 
other species mentioned, the statements about which are ancient history to 
Orchid growers ; and (4) that the voluntary description of C. Kimballianum 
was equally unnecessary because it was properly described by Mr. Grey in 
American Gardening, and courtesy demands that the work of our American 
cousin should be recognised. 
We have already stated that C. prestans var. Kimballianum ultimately 
became C. Kimballianum through the omission of the specific name, but 
now we are asked for a reference. Here are five, beginning in 1887 and 
ending in 1894 :—O. Ballif in Lindema, ili. p. 48; Journ. des Orch., v., p. 
63; R. H. Measures’ Cyp. List, ed. 1, p. 383 ed. 3, p- 63; R. I. Measures’ 
Cyp. List, ed. 3, p. 34. This is the “bogey” we have set up. It would 
have been a great deal more to the point if Mr. O’Brien had justified his 
statement about “ancient history” by giving a reference to the work in 
which the collection of facts that we published had previously appeared. 
The very fact that we had to collect them gradually from original sources 
sufficiently disposes of that statement. Instead of our remarks being 
“unnecessary,” they were at first incomplete, because we failed to discover 
the error made when a second C. Kimballianum was described, and thus 
fell into the very natural mistake of supposing there was only one. But 
this we took the earliest opportunity of correcting. Mr. O’Brien’s final 
remark about “ courtesy” is as appropriate as his reference to where the 
second C. Kimballianum is described is complete, which is not saying 
much. Has he overlooked no references? It may be as well to add that 
the Gardeners’ Chronicle figure was not in reality the text of our note, though 
it may appear to have been. Had it never appeared our note would have 
taken a somewhat different form ; that is all. 
Finally, we protest emphatically against Mr. O’Brien’s method of 
criticism. First he stated that we had only discovered a mare’s nest, and 
that our remarks had-no application whatever to Gs Kimballianum, but as 
soon as we disproved this he turns round and accuses os of setting up the 
bogey ourselves in order to have the honour of knocking . down — 
which is equally erroneous. How far our remarks were ~ unnecessary 
our readers can judge for themselves. 
