NOVEMBER, 1913-] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 335 
trees in shady valleys at 4000 to 5000 feet elevation on Doi Sutep. We do 
not know if it is in cultivation at the present time. 
CCLOGYNE ASSAMICA was described in 1857 (Linden & Rchb. f. in Berl. 
Allg. Gartenz., 1857, p. 403). It is said to have been received from Assam, 
and to have flowered with Mr. John Linden in December, 1857. Soon 
afterwards it was figured by Reichenbach (Xen. Orch., ii. p. 111, fig. 2). It 
is most like C. brunnea in the strongly three-lobed lip, but has smaller 
flowers, with lighter sepals and petals. There are specimens preserved at 
Kew from several collections, and in two cases the plants are said to have 
been imported from Burma. It is now flowering at the Royal Botanic 
Garden, Glasnevin, in the collection of Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., and 
with Messrs. Sander & Sons. 
CG@LOGYNE CYCNOCHES was collected by the Rev. C. Parish on Dauna 
Toung, Moulmein, at 4000 feet elevation, and was described from dried 
specimens and a painting (Par. & Rchb. f. in Trans. Linn. Soc. xxx. p. 
147). It was recorded as rare, and is still only known from Parish’s 
original specimen and drawing. It has light green flowers, and a strongly 
three-lobed lip, with acute lobes, and some radiating brown stripes on the 
front lobe. 
The foregoing were placed in a distinct section of the genus, called 
Fuscescentes, by Pfitzer (Engl. Pflanzenr., Orch. Coelog., p. 42), but he only 
admitted two species, C. fuscescens, with three varieties, and C. Cycnoches. 
The arrangement does not accord with the characters of the plants, and 
there is much confusion. Of the typical C. fuscescens he gives several 
localities, of which Burma must be excluded, as belonging to var. brunnea, 
while his figures A and B, given as representing the type, belong to his var. 
assamica. The latter is based on C. assamica as originally described, with- 
out any additional information. Under var. brunnea he includes the original 
Moulmein plant and another from Yunnan, having rather smaller flowers. 
Then comes a var. integrilabia, with fig. C, based on Lindley’s var. A.— 
which is the original C. fuseescens, and the single locality, “ Penang 
Wallich, 1962,’ which is erroneous. The fact is Wallich included two 
plants under his 1962, one from Nepal, which is C. fuscescens, Lindl., and 
another from Penang, the latter being C. macrobulbon, Hook. f., which is 
identical with the older C. Rochussenii, De Vriese. Pfitzer’s fig. D., 
purporting to represent C. Cycnoches, was copied from a drawing on the 
Kew sheet, but is incorrect, representing a plant with a broader lip, very 
obtuse side lobes, and five keels on the disc. It isasad record of confusion. 
The materials are hardly adequate at present to say whether C. brunnea 
and C. assamica are distinct or forms of a single species, but C. fuscescens 
is easily separated by its nearly obsolete side lobes, besides being 
geographically distinct. R.A.R, 
