102 THE ORCAID REVIEW. 
(Orch. Rev., ii., p. 28). It then presumably changed hands, for two days 
later it was exhibited by Messrs. Linden, at a meeting of the R. H. S:,. 
under the name of L. Luciani, and received a Botanical Certificate (l.c., 
p. 30). It was subsequently described under the latter name (Van Imsch.. 
& Cogn. in Journ. des Orch., iv., p. 361), asa beautiful ‘‘species,” near L. 
lasioglossa and L. Skinneri, and afterwards figured (Lindenia, t. 412), when, 
though still called a ‘‘species,” it is mentioned that M. Van Imschoot 
thinks it may be a natural hybrid between L. lasioglossa and L. Skinneri.. 
This is clearly its origin, for the hairy lip and intermediate character are 
unmistakable. M. Van Imschoot’s second plant also flowered in the follow" 
ing month. The plant from M. Paul Wolter, mentioned at page 63, is 
apparently identical. R. A. ROLFE. 
MASDEVALLIA SORORCULA., 
AT the last meeting of the R. H. S. a plant of Masdevallia sororcula was- 
exhibited by Sir Trevor Lawrence, which proves to be the type plant from: 
which the species was described by Reichenbach some fourteen years ago 
(Gard. Chron., 1887, ii., p. 712). The author described it as “the younger 
sister of M. elephanticeps itself,” and went on to point out that there were 
but two strong differences besides the colour and smaller size. Its history 
was thus given :—‘‘ When visiting Sir Trevor Lawrence’s glorious collection; 
in the possessor’s absence, in September, 1886, Messrs. J. Day, W. Lee, and! 
I saw this curiosity in flower, and I obtained the single flower and a leaf. 
This year, when at the same Orchidic Eldorado with Mr. J. Day, guided 
by Sir Trevor himself, there was no vestige of a flower. The species of 
this affinity are very shy flowers. Thus I publish the plant after havingS® 
much desired to see a second flower. It is so very awkward to describe @ 
species from one flower only—often it is quite impossible ; in this case there 
are at least most remarkable characters the constancy of which we may 
hope to experience.” : 2 
I was under the impression that the plant had been lost sight of, having: 
never seen an authentic flower, and having failed to identify anything with 
the description, but the latter point is now explained, for the species proves: 
identical with M. Mooreana, described by the same author about thre® 
years earlier (Gard. Chron., 1884, xxi., p. 408). The original flower may — 
not have been quite normally developed when described, but, on comparing 4 
one of those now produced, I find that all the essential characters agree, and 4 
the circumstance of its being from the original source confirms any doubt 4 
that there might be in the matter. It is interesting to have the point 
cleared up. 
R. A. ROLFE- 
