THE ORCHID REVIEW. 265 
DICTIONNAIRE ICONOQGRAPHIQUE DES ORCHDIEES. 
THE March and April numbers of the Dictionnaire Iconographique des Orchidées 
of Messrs. Cogniaux and Goossens reached us early in August, and among 
the plates we notice Disa xX Veitchii, Stauropsis gigantea, Cymbidium 
pendulum, Masdevallia elephanticeps, Odontoglossum Edwardii, Pescatorea 
Lehmanni, and Warscewiczella discolor, also six additional Cypripediums. 
The plant figured as Zygopetalum Mackayi, however, is not the original one 
of that name (Bot. Mag., t. 2748), but evidently a form of Z. crinitum, Lodd. 
In the accompanying Chronique Orchidéene (p. 219) M. Cogniaux 
expresses great surprise at a remark made at p. 161 of our June issue, that 
‘Cypripedium exul, O’Brien should be C. exul, Rolfe,” especially as the 
former name was “given by Mr. Rolfe in the Lindenia.” M. Cogniaux is 
evidently not aware that the name as given in Lindenia was a hurried 
alteration in the proof, and after all was incorrect. He evidently overlooked 
the history of the question at pp. 269, 270 of our fourth volume, or he would 
have cited it. The facts are briefly that on April 12, 1892, it was exhibited 
at a meeting of the R.H.S. under the name of Cypripedium insigne var. 
siamense, the correctness of which was doubted by the Orchid Committee, 
who referred it to Kew for determination. On April 19th it was again 
exhibited as C. exul, Rolfe (syn. C. insigne var. exul, Ridl.), and the facts 
were recorded in the Journal of Horticulture, and two days later in the 
Gardeners’ Chronicle, but in the latter the author of the name was omitted, 
which fact is responsible for all the confusion which has arisen. 
At the same time M. Cogniaux expresses himself as curious to know 
why the plates in the Dictionnaire are not deemed worthy of a place in 
our list of Orchid Portraits. The question has already been answered. If 
M. Cogniaux will turn to page 67 of our March issue he will find an 
explanation, which it seems unnecessary to repeat. The remark seems to 
insinuate that we show a want of appreciation of the work, which is a great 
mistake, and this is the fifth time during the present year that we have 
called attention to it. We find it most useful, and the plates attain a degree 
of accuracy which is sadly lacking in some figures which we know. It may 
seem ungracious to call attention to mistakes which have appeared in it, 
but we have done it solely in the interests of accuracy, and believe that 
any impartial observer would admit it to bea service to horticulture, if not 
to the work itself. Already new sheets of text have been issued to replace 
erroneous ones as a result of our remarks, and, to be candid, we think this 
has been the weakest point in the work. 
The May and June numbers have arrived just as we are going to press. 
The former contains, among others, Aérides Houlletianum, Cymbidium 
tigrinum, Dendrobium cymbidioides and thyrsiflorum, Eulophiella 
