THE ORCHID REVIEW. 323 
DIES ORCHIDIANZA. 
In the Orchid Review for June last, I dropped across a curious little note :— 
‘We cannot express any opinion respecting a plant which we have not 
seen, but you may take it as certain that Cattleya floribunda is not a 
natural hybrid . . . We shall be able to tell you more about it some day ; 
meantime you must use your own discretion as to its novelty.” Here was 
something to keep an eye on. I had seen the announcement of ‘the most 
marvellous new Orchid of recent years,” and how it gave immense and 
easily understood satisfaction to announce to Orchid cultivators that the 
desire expressed that this wonderful introduction should be placed in com- 
merce at once, without waiting until it flowered—when its reputation would 
have been at once established—could not be resisted. I had also observed 
that it was to “cause a sensation in the Orchid world.” Its flowering 
season was from September to December, so fortunately there would not be 
long to wait. Four months elapse ; the sheath bursts; the buds swell; the 
eventful moment at length arrives when the flower expands, and reveals— 
Cattleya maxima ! 
Some time ago (II., p. gg) I had occasion to mention Grammatophyllum 
Guilielmi secundi and Dendrobium Auguste-Victorie—by the way I see 
from the July issue of the Review that both have come to grief—but now we 
have a ‘‘ Miltonia Empress Augusta Victoria’? (Gard. Chron., Sept. 28, p. 
360), which I confess I don’t quite understand. My first impression is that 
it must be a species, and I mentally exclaim, “ surely our species are not also 
to be named in the vernacular,”’ but glancing down I note that ‘ the divisions 
are more pointed than those of the type,’’ so it cannot be a species after all. 
Now I want to know what the typeis. I suppose there was no room for 
that, and when it takes three names to indicate the variety there is naturally 
not much room left for anything else, and one must not expect too much. 
The line must be drawn somewhere, even if the specific name has to be left 
out. Then there is another little difficulty. The flower is ‘‘ over 4 inches 
in height by 3} inches across,” but as the ‘‘two lateral sepals are each 4 
inches long’’—that is each as long as the whole flower—I can only endorse 
Mr. Ch. De B.’s further remark that it is ‘‘ of unusual habit.” 
A week later (p. 391) I find ‘‘ Cypripedium Bolerlaerianum xX (C. 
Dauthieri x C. Harrisianum) flowering for the first time ; the blossom large 
and good, with a fine standard, resembling greatly that of c. Harrisianum.” 
Now considering that C. x Harrisianum and C. Xx Dauthieri are identical 
in their parentage the latter remark will hardly be called in question. It must 
_ be something like C. olivetense—a so-called hybrid between C. barbatum and 
C. b. Warnerianum—in requiring a microscope to find out its differences. 
