SEPTEMBER, 1913.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 277 
to cause him to have altered his mind and to shut up his numberless 
specimens, drawings, and copious notes from everyone interested in this 
beautiful and popular order of plants.—B.S.W.” 
The doubt alluded to appeared in the Journal of Botany, where the 
Editor remarks: “It is difficult to understand on what grounds it should 
have been assumed, as seems to have been the case, that the collection 
would come to England.” The criticism was more particularly directed to 
a remark in the Saturday Review: “It has been understood by all the 
universe that . . . _his gigantic and priceless collections would be left 
to Kew,” and of this it is observed, ‘‘a more misleading statement it would 
be difficult to find.” The following, however, has been written in the Kew 
copy: ‘‘ Reichenbach told me more than once that his collections would go 
to Kew; but lately he was strongly prejudiced against those who had 
taken up the study of Orchids in this country.—W. B. H.” 
The foregoing sufficiently indicates the importance of the Reichenbachian 
Herbarium and the problematical nature of its contents, but if further 
evidence is necessary the reader is referred to the history of Masdevallia 
Lowii and Catasetum Bungerothii given at pp. 335, 336 of our third volume, 
where the question was asked “ whether, in order to secure priority for a 
name, it is sufficient for an author 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 ?” 
A comment by Reichenbach himself is eloquent in this connection. 
When describing Microstylis calophylla he had some difficulty with an 
incomplete diagnosis, and remarked: ‘‘ Authors should do more than secure 
to themselves the right of priority . . . by such incomplete 
diagnoses. Not only should a careful ascinaae be taken, but great care 
should be taken to help posterity in discriminating the species. Therefore 
the specimen, or those specimens, which furnished the evidence for the 
establishment of the species should be distinctly marked as ‘the type of 
my species.’ I now always do this in my collection. I regard this as a 
fidei commisum for my lifetime that that will have to be distinctly kept 
within reach of the men of science after my death.” Comment would be 
superfluous. 
Evidence of another kind could also be given, but we will conclude with 
a paragraph that can only be cited in its entirety from our own pages. 
When Reichenbach described Selenipedium Boissierianum he remarked: 
*“*We know of only onespecimen . . . and it gives us much 
pleasure to dedicate this beautiful plant, ceobably unique in the collections 
of Europe, to its proprietor, M. Edmund Boissier, to whom we are under so 
great obligations.’ Commenting on this M. William Barbey, the present 
possessor of the Boissier Herbarium, remarks: ‘ Unfortunately that unique 
