March, roit.} THE ORCHID REVIEW. 67 
original piece, and, therefore, all alike. Orchids cannot be dealt with like 
this on account of their slow rate of growth. 
The custom as regards Orchids can be illustrated by a very graphic 
example. A batch of a certain secondary hybrid was raised, and when the 
seedlings began to flower, one of them proved to be a decided improvement. 
A florists’ name—or sequence of names—was given, which we will call 
‘«X,” and the plant was exhibited, its quality being recognised by the 
award of a Certificate. Two years later a batch of it was exhibited under the 
same name, but they were not all alike, though the exhibitor explained that 
all were seedlings out of the same seed-pod. One was finer than all the 
others, and we asked if this was the original certificated plant. ‘‘ No,” 
replied the exhibitor, indicating another plant, .‘‘ this is the original one, 
but the new one is better.” This did not flower until after the other was 
named, or it would have received the honour, and if a stock were being 
propagated for distribution it is the new one that would be selected. 
Here is the kernel of the whole difficulty, the existence of which is the 
cause of endless heart-burnings, and which we are desirous of remedying. 
But the mere naming of hybrids as florists’ flowers will not remedy it. We 
want a specific name—not a sequence of them—to which suitable varietal 
names can afterwards be added as necessary, and many florists’ names have 
this quality. The principle ‘‘ one hybrid, one name” should be adopted. 
Perhaps a little consideration of the necessities of the case, and a little 
co-operation, may help in providing a solution of the difficulty. 
BIFRENARIA MELANOPODA. 
A curtous little Orchid has been sent to Kew for determination by Mr. 
James O’Brien, Harrow-on-the-Hill, and its examination has led to some 
interesting discoveries. It is a miniature Bifrenaria, a genus containing 
several imperfectly-known species. One of these is B. clavigera, described 
by Reichenbach over forty years ago (Hamb. Gartenz., 1865, p. 296), from 
materials sent to him by Mr. John Day, and said to have been from a 
Brazilian importation by Mr. S. Low. A coloured drawing was made by Mr. 
Day in April, 1867 (Orch. Draw., v. t. 13), which agrees well with the one 
sent by Mr. O'Brien. The plant described and figured by Kranzlin, in 
1896, as Stenocoryne Wendlandiana (Xen. Orch., iii. p. 155, t- 289, fig. 1), 
evidently represents a form of the same species. This flowered with Herr 
Wendland at Herrenhausen, and is also said to have been imported from 
Brazil. It was transferred to Bifrenaria by Cogniaux, as B. Wendlandiana_.,. 
(Mart. Fl, Bras., iii. pt. 5, p-. 489), and is distinguished from other © 
Brazilian species by having solitary flowers, while B. clavigera is placed at 
