300 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
The disparaging remarks which I read in the Gardeners’ Chronicle of the 
14th September, respecting your articles on Cypripedium Kimballianum and 
hybrid of the same name (Orchid Review, vol. iii., pp. 238 and 271) have 
puzzled and surprised me. In making up my own Cypripedium list, 
commenced some years ago, I made use of all material bearing on the 
subject available to me at the time. Under the letter “K” I find 
“ Kimballianum,” with no allusion to “ prestans,” apparently taken from 
Mr. R. H. Measures’ list, but being from home I am unable to verify this. 
It is only since seeing your articles that I have been able to add “ (syn. 
prestans).”” It is true that under the letter “P” I have “ prestans Kim- 
ballianum,” but there was nothing to show that the two were identical. 
When, in the Gardeners’ Chronicle of the 29th June, 1895, I saw the name 
of ‘‘ Kimballianum ”’ as a hybrid, I saw at once that confusion was inevitable, 
and, granting that the species should be written “ prestans Kimballianum,’’ 
the fact remains that lists have been published without the prefix, and, no 
doubt, copied into those of many amateurs like myself. 
With regard to your description of the hybrid being unnecessary, I 
have to thank you for it, for I have never seen a copy of the publication 
American Gardening, and I expect the vast majority of Orchid growers in 
this country are similarly circumstanced. 
REGINALD YOUNG. 
Bournemouth, 18th Sept., 1895. 
AN IDEAL CYPRIPEDIUM LIST. 
By E. H. Woopa.., Scarborough. 
“CAVIARE to the general ” is, I think, a not inapt description of this flower, 
which is to some the most prized, and to others the most despised, of all 
Orchids. As far as my experience goes, however, I am bound to say, that 
when anyone says to me, “I don’t care for those ugly Cypripediums, you 
know,” or “I draw the line at those dingy things,” I find on further 
acquaintance my friend is only a budding Orchid-grower at best, or, more 
probably, devotes his gardening energies to what he calls “ useful things”’; 
while on the other hand, I invariably find the man or woman who says, 
“How I delight in Cypripediums,” to be a true Orchid lover, and an 
accomplished grower of them. There is something in knowledge, it is 
evident, or why should those who know most so frequently prefer the Cypri- 
pedium to other Orchids? It is, I think, the knowledge of the beauties 
among the vast number of Cypripediums that attracts the man who knows, 
while the vast number of inferior species and varieties that swamp the 
Stages of some gardeners causes a prejudice against them in the eyes of 
those who have not time to observe closely. 
4 
