THE ORCHID REVIEW. 131 
Mr. Rolfe was justified in regarding his plant as a distinct species. The 
sepal tails of M. trinema are said to be much longer than the triangular 
bodies, whereas in M. Lowii they seem to be always markedly shorter. The 
bidentate tip of the column marks another discrepancy, that of M. Lowii 
bearing several fimbriations. Moreover, Reichenbach’s statement that the 
dimensions of M. trinema are those of his M. Gaskelliana, points to a 
smaller flower than that of M. Lowii.”’ 
Now this question was dealt with some years ago (Orch. Rev., iii., p. 335), 
when Mr. Rolfe, commenting on the same point, remarked :—‘ The species 
was described in 1886 . . . . without the slightest indication of its 
discoverer, who, Miss: Woolward also says, is ‘unknown,’ but, as Consul 
Lehmann remarks, ‘I first found it in 1883’ it would appear that he is the 
unknown discoverer, and that it was before the specimens were sent to 
Reichenbach that he had the advantage of seeing them—for it is notorious 
that Reichenbach’s Herbarium was as much a sealed book to his contem- 
poraries during his lifetime as it is now after his death. If this supposition 
is correct, the identification must be accepted, in spite of some discrepancies 
in the original description ” (which differences are then pointed out). 
Now, the question arises, in face of these two somewhat divergent 
opinions, what are we to call our cultivated plant? If we call it M. Lowii 
we admit M. trinema to be an unknown species, in spite of the fact that its 
discoverer, who saw it alive, and collected a few examples to send to 
Reichenbach, recognizes the two to be identical. We have plenty of 
evidence that Consul Lehmann has an unrivalled knowledge of Masdevallias 
in their native habitats, and it is very unlikely that he would mistake so 
distinct a species as the one under discussion. The author of M. Lowii 
evidently recognizes*this, and gives up his name in favour of the older one, 
and, under the circumstances, we cannot do better than follow him. 
Mr. Rolfe, however, at the time asked a very pertinent question, namely, 
a, whether, in order to secure priority for a name, it is sufficient to write a 
description which does not apply, refuse to let anyone see the specimen 
during his lifetime, and finally lock it up for a quarter of a century after his 
death? If so,” he added, ‘‘ the law of priority becomes an absolute farce. 
It is universally conceded that the mere publication of a name does not 
secure priority for it. It must be accompanied by a proper description, so 
that any competent person may recognize the thing to which it applies. 
The spirit of this rule has certainly not been carried out in the present 
instance, and it is a rather nice question how far the law of priority 
applies to it.” 
