THE ORCHID REVIEW. 335 
MASDEVALLIA TRINEMA. 
In Miss Woolward’s work, The Genus Masdevallia, 1 note the remark by 
Consul Lehmann —“ Masdevallia Lowii, Rolfe, is identical with M. 
trinema, Rchb. f.,” to which Miss Woolward adds that Consul Lehmann 
“has had the advantage of examining Professor Reichenbach’s dried _ 
specimens.” The species was described in 1886 (Flora, Ixix., p- 558), 
without the slightest indication of the discoverer, who, Miss Woolward also 
says, is “ unknown,” but as Consul Lehmann remarks, “‘I first found it 
in 1883,” it would appear that he is the unknown discoverer, and that it 
was before the specimens were sent to Reichenbach that he had the 
advantage of seeing them—for it is notorious that Reichenbach’s Herbarium 
was as much a sealed book to his contemporaries during his lifetime as it is 
now after his death. If this supposition is correct the identification must 
be accepted, in spite of some serious discrepancies in the original description. 
For example, Reichenbach describes the leaves as cuneate-linear, and a foot 
long; the free parts of the sepals triangular, and extended into much 
longer tails; and the dimensions those of Masdevallia Gaskelliana ; not one 
of which agrees with M. Lowii. My original remark respecting the latter 
(Gard. Chron., 1890, i., p. 416) was, “ Its nearest ally is M. trinema, Rchb. f., 
described from dried specimens, and which I am not aware has ever 
been in cultivation, but there are so many differences in the description 
that I think the present species must be quite distinct.” And I may now 
add that in this species I have never seen the tails as long as the rest of 
the sepals, let alone “ much longer,” while the remark, _ dimensions of M. 
Gaskelliana,” is equally misleading, because in that the tails are 
invariably longer than the sepals. However, if the above identification is 
correct, the law of priority demands that my name shall be superseded, and, 
' without contesting the point, one may venture to ask whether, in order to 
secure priority for a name, it is sufficient for an author to write a descrip- 
tion which does not apply, refuse to let anyone see the _ gees dur re his 
lifetime, and finally'lock it up for a quarter of a century after his death : = 
so, the law of priority becomes an absolute farce. It is univer eee " 
that the mere publication of a name does not secure priority for oi 
must be accompanied by a proper description, so that weld porate 
person may recognise the thing to which it applies. papier IS 
has certainly not been carried out in the present instance, and it isa 
“iy ee ip ape e ioe nae eet example. Reichen- 
Catasetum Bungerothii furnishes a somew _ 7 Lie tucishod by 
bach described a Catasetum pileatum from dried materials sears rss 
Messrs. Linden, and afterwards even gave 4 second bee pe : 
Catasetum Bungerothii, N. E. Br., was described, and sno al as an 
Reichenbach declared that it was his C. pileatum. a. es. agi 
_ attempt was made to bring forward the original name : 
