OcTOBER, 1913.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 299 
THE REICHENBACHIAN HERBARIUM. 
OurR article on the Reichenbachian Herbarium at pp. 273-278 has, we are 
glad to find, aroused considerable interest. An old friend, who knew the 
late Prof. Reichenbach for over twenty years before his death, writes: “It 
was forty-five years ago that I first visited him, and repeated the visit twice 
yearly for a long period. There were 130 steps to climb to his high abode, 
chosen, as he said jokingly, so that no spilt water might destroy his 
treasures. At last, light will be thrown upon his work. He made mistakes, 
but he had not the great Kew Herbarium to run to on the spur of the 
moment. fle was great, and had a marvellous mind. His memory wants 
careful handling. He did endless good, and we have all reaped the benefit 
of his sowing.” 
We are also asked by another correspondent whether the Herbarium is 
likely to be of much use after being shut up all these years? Our reply 
must be in the affirmative. We believe that ample means were taken to 
preserve the specimens from the ravages of damp and insects, and if this 
has been done no fear need be felt as to their safety. The Herbaria of 
Lindley and of Wallich are in excellent condition, and even the much older 
Herbarium of Linnzus is well preserved. With proper care the lapse of 
years scarcely counts in this connection. As to the work having been 
carried on very well without the Herbarium, let us be under no illusions. 
It has been a long struggle under adverse circumstances, as those who 
realise the difficulties involved will be able to appreciate. It is not always 
€asy to identify closely allied species from descriptions alone, even when 
carefully made from ample materials. What then shall be said for 
imperfect descriptions, often made from incomplete or unrepresentative 
Scraps, without any attempt to give dimensions, and sometimes without any 
indication of the native country ? 
Let us give an example. In 1860 Reichenbach described (Hamb. 
Gartenz., 1860, p. 424) a new Stanhopea from Consul Schiller’s collection, 
as follows :— 
*‘ STANHOPEA COSTARICENSIS. aff. St. Wardii, hypochilio pandurato, 
inferne profunde intruso, hinc quasi bigibbo, gibbere antico curvato, 
transverso, postice utrinque carinato, canali subclauso. 
“Von Costa Rica in Herrn Consul Schiller’s Sammlung.” 
There is not a word besides, but will anyone who knows Stanhopeas 
tell us to which species it belongs? It may be large or small, white or 
yellow, spotted or unspotted, in short the description is wholly inadequate. 
If the locality is correct, the plant may ultimately be identified with some 
Costa Rican species, but in the meantime it may have been described under 
Some other name, in which case the law of priority will consign the new 
