THE ORCAID REVIEW. 5 
found themselves sailing for the same destination, in the same steamer, and 
on the same errand. How well they, and others who followed them, suc- 
ceeded is matter for history. The close of the period we are speaking of 
witnessed a great development in Cool Orchid culture. 
The commencement of the fourth quarter of the century found the 
country in the midst of the boom in Cool Orchid culture. The index to 
the Gardeners’ Chronicle for 1876 contains under the heading ‘‘ New Garden 
Plants described ’’ notices of seven Masdevallias, and in the preceding year 
of no less than eighteen ; while the record in all other departments during 
this and succeeding years was one of rapid progress. Of the events of 
this period we have scarcely time to speak, and it is the less necessary 
seeing that many of them are within the memory of living Orchidists. 
Suffice it to say that it has been a period of remarkable development in 
every branch of Orchid culture. Among its more important landmarks 
may be mentioned the establishment of the Orchid Album in 1882, of the 
Lindenia in 1885, the great Orchid Conference held in London in the same 
year, with its continuation at Liverpool in 1886, the commencement of the 
Reichenbachia at about the latter period, of Veitch’s Manual of Orchidaceous 
Plants in 1887, the formation of an Orchid Committee by the Royal Horti- 
cultural Society in 1889, the establishment of the Orchid Review in 1893, 
and the formation of the Manchester and North of England Orchid 
Society in 1897, all of which testify to the growing popularity of this 
beautiful group of plants. The period was also marked by the appearance 
of a constant stream of imported novelties, and towards its close by the 
rapid succession of hybrids raised at home. 
So much for the nineteenth century; may the cult increase and multi- 
ply in like manner during the twentieth ! 
FALSE HYBRIDS. 
We have apparently another addition to make to the list of ‘“ False 
Hybrids ’—those curious aberrations in which the mother parent alone is 
reproduced, though the hybridisation was carried out with due care. A 
flower and leaf sent from the collection of O. O. Wrigley, Esq., Bridge Hall, 
Bury, are apparently forms of Paphiopedilum tonsum pure and simple, but _ 
Mr. Wrigley states that his register shows it to be the result of fertilising P. 
tonsum with the pollen of P. niveum, the operation having taken place 
in February, 1897. The seedling seems to have flowered rather quickly, 
and we fail to find any trace of the influence of P. niveum. It seems to 
afford a parallel to the case of P. barbatum X niveum, recorded at page 
201 of our last volume, in which the influence of the pollen parent was not 
apparent, 
