THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
Von IX]. . "MARCH, 1gol. LNo. 99. 
DIES ORCHIDIANZ. 
i THE history of Phaius tuberculosus and its ally, P. simulans, as given in 
your last issue, is very interesting, and when looking at the excellent 
Photograph at page 41 I could not help wishing that the two had been 
figured side by side, especially if their very different habits had been shown. 
It is fortunate that well-marked differences have been detected in the keels 
and crests of the lip, for otherwise the floral resemblance would have been 
embarrassing, and one can hardly conceive two such dissimilar plants 
bearing identical flowers. It is marvellous that the resemblance should be 
so close, and perhaps some of our authorities who inquire into the ‘‘ reason 
of things ” will tell us why it is so. 
I thought we had not heard the last of the matter, and the issue of the 
Gardeners’ Magazine for F ebruary 23rd (page 116) contains some observations 
By “ A YC.” ater alluding to the plant being exhibited at the R. H. S. 
meeting, as already recorded, he proceeds :— 
“It is certainly strange, when a plant is being sold and advertised for 
the owners under one name, after it has been in flower for'some weeks at 
Kew, to be suddenly described as the true Phaius tuberculosus.” 
— Well, “strange” things have eer and happening “suddenly.” 
seems to have been a little disconcerting. However, let us read on:— 
‘The specimen shown at the Drill Hall, I have no hesitation in saying, 
is unmistakably intermediate _between ‘Phaius Humblotii and the species 
we have known in culti as Phaius tuberculosus. 
Notwithstanding this fact, Mr. Rolfe n now ois ‘the name to P. simulans. I 
Suppose the identity of this plant as a natural hybrid would not be admitted 
by the powers that be at the Hoy ae ‘dens, ee. ae raat remarked, 
