130 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
not a seedling house, before such a course is possible. But let no one be 
discouraged by this remark ; Mr. Orpet was a beginner once, and tried a: 
good many kinds of seed-beds besides the old parent plants before he dis- 
covered his improved method. 
I like his big Don’rin connection with the ‘ immersion business.” If 
there is one thing more than another which serves to confuse our records it 
is the dipping process. One starts off with a bucket of water and finds, 
let us say, a dozen seed-pans getting dry, on which as many different kinds 
of seeds have been sown. In goesnumber one and a few seeds are perhaps 
floated off, to be captured in turn by number two or some later one. A 
little repetition of this process serves to displace an appreciable number of 
seeds, some of which afterwards germinate, and thus get an erroneous 
record of parentage. Later on, perhaps, one sends the flower, with the 
record, to some expert in order to get it named, and he replies, “‘ parentage 
impossible.” Mr. Orpet’s cross that has flowered under at least half a 
dozen different labels, alas! is not a solitary example. ‘‘ No more dipping ”’ 
is a good moral: a sprayer or fine syringe should always be used. 
I note that Mr. Orpet uses the formula recommended by Mr. Cookson, 
‘¢ at every watering,” and that it has “‘ worked wonders ” among the seed- 
lings. This may interest Mr. Burberry, who at page 125 of the same issue — 
remarks that “ the question of manurial aid to Orchids seems to have been 
dropped of late.” A few more “experiences” on this subject would cer- 
tainly be interesting. Mr. Burberry seems to deprecate the use of manure 
generally; but what is that ‘‘ something” to be added when one is reduced 
to the necessity of using “‘ tap-water”? I shall look for an answer to that © 
little question. 
Some curious questions of identity keep turning up, and I note that the 
Scientific Committee of the R. H. S., at its meeting on April 6th, had some 
trouble over a species of Masdevallia, as witness the austere. from its 
FEPOEL S— 
‘‘ MASDEVALLIA SP.—Mr. Chapman me ten the following species, upon - 
which Mr. Rend] rts as follows:—M llia Lowii, Rolfe (Gard. Chron., 
1890, i. 416) is said by Miss Woolward, in her monograph of the genus, on 
Consul Lehmann’s authority—‘ who has had the advantage of examining 
Prof. Reichenbach’s dried specimens ’—to be the same as M. trinema, Rchb. 
f. (Flora, 1886, 538). As M. Lowii was not described till after Prof. 
Reichenbach’s death, when his dried specimens could no longer be consulted, 
Consul Lehmann’s opinion would seem to be based on memory. A compari- 
son of the flower of M. Lowii with the description of M. trinema suggests that 
