96 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
ORCHID PORTRAITS. 
CALANTHE X GIGAS.—Journ. Hort., 1900, xlii. p. 129, with fig. 
CATTLEYA X LaNSBERGEI.—Lindenia, t. 725. This is a form of C. x 
Fabia. ; 
Cuysis La&vis, Lindl.—Lindenia, t. 726. 
CG:LOGYNE CRISTATA (specimen plant).—Journ. Hort., 1900, xlii, pp. 
149, 151, with fig. 
CYNORCHIS PURPURASCENS, Thouars.—Gard. Chron., 1900, xxix, pp. 86, 
87, fig. 37. 
CYPRIPEDIUM X H. HANNINGTON.—Garden, 1900, lix, p- 107, with fig. 
CYPRIPEDIUM X LANSBERGE#.—Lindenia, t. 727. 
CYPRIPEDIUM X T. W. Bonp, Counpon Court VAR.—Gard. Chron., 
1900, XXIx,, pp. 114, 127, fig. 51; Journ. Hort., 1900, xlii, p. 169, with fig. 
DENDROBIUM ASHWORTHI&.—Gard. Chron., 1900, xxix, p. &6, fig. 36. 
L&LIA ANCEPS SCHRG:DERIANA.—Gard. Chron., 1900, xxix, pp. 87, 94, 
fig. 39. 
L#LIA GRANDIS TENEBROSA.—Rev. Hort., 1900, p. 68, with plate. 
_ ODONTOGLOSSUM X LOOCHRISTIENSE ROCHFORDIANUM.—Journ. Hort., 
1900, xlii, p. 149, with fig. 
ODONTOGLOSSUM NEVADENSE ROSEFIELDENSE.—Journ. Hort., 1900, xlii, 
Pp. 109, with fig.; Gard. Mag., 1900, p. 97, with fig. 
PHAIUS TUBERCULOSUS, Blume.—Garden, 1900, lix, Pp: 97, with fig. 
SCHOMBURGKIA HumBLoti, Rchb. f.—Lindenia, t. 728. 
poe EN ee 
CORRESPONDENCE. &c. 
(Correspondents not answered here may find replies to their queries on other pages, and in some 
cases, for various reasons, they may have to stand over jor a future issue. In the case of hybrid seedlings 
sent for name, the parentage and history should always be briefly stated, for without these details we 
are not always able to deal with them satisfaétori Ly.) 
. eT Dendrobium sent as Winn’s seedling we take to be a small form of D- x 
Rubens, but not at present at all equal to the original one. The flower is, as it should be, 
about three-fourths D. nobile. 
H. G. A. Lycaste lasioglossa. 
J. W. A. Leelia crispilabia. 
__E. R. We have succeeded in finding a description of Cypripidium insigne Dorothy, and 
with that your flower agrees fairly well, except in being rather smaller, which, however, 
may arise from the plant being weak. You do not Say at which sale it was purchased, 
but this might afford a clue as to whether it was authentic. 
_J. R. Box duly received, with leaf and portion of peduncle, but the flowers were 
missing —evidently “appropriated” during transit. 
M. O. S. Report not yet to hand. 
Photographs received, with thanks. 0. O. Wi, Bi be GPA: 
Received. E. F.C. W. H. Way Jey WR, 
We have received the descriptive Catalogue of Orchids issued by Messrs. Charles- 
worth and Co., Heaton, Bradford, for the present year, containing particulars of a large 
selection of Species and hybrids. 
. Also the General. Catalogue of Orchids issued by Mr. A. J. Keeling, Cottingley, 
Bingley, Yorks, containing a selection of the more popular kinds. 
