10 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
the fact that not one of all those attempts has ever produced a flowering 
plant should interfere with my proposal.” We take precisely the opposite 
view, and we think the very facts adduced should have prevented such a 
proposal ever being made. Names should not be given to commemorate 
mere ‘‘ attempts ’’—and some are nothing more, for on flowering one or 
two of them have proved to be empty traditions. It is only when such 
plants actually flower that one can be certain that a bona fide cross has been 
effected, and only then should a name be given. Odopetalum is thus 
justified :—« Seedlings raised by Veitch, of Chelsea, between Zygopetalum 
Mackayi and several Odontoglossa have turned out to be simple Zyg. 
Mackayi.” Odopetalum is therefore simply Zygopetalum Mackayi. Can 
anything be more absurd? Some of the other reputed crosses may prove 
equally apparitional. The author alludes to—* The attack upon momen- 
clature by the French savant who committed the horrible Miltoniopsis (do 
not let us mention his name).”” But we will desist, or we may discover the 
stick created by Mr. Hansen to beat himself with. We should, however, 
like to hear the remarks of the French savant when reading these remarkable 
lines. 
The introductory portion contains much interesting matter, together 
with some that is either personal or that has no relation to the subject 
matter of the book, and some of this we think would have better—indeed, 
ought to have—been omitted. Some of the points we shouid like to have 
alluded to did space permit. One remark, however, we cannot allow to 
pass unnoticed, and-that is where the author, in alluding to the Orchid 
Review in very complimentary terms, makes an assumption with regard to 
the initiation of that work, for which there is not the slightest foundation, 
either in substance or fact, but which need not be mentioned further. In 
conclusion, we may add that apart from the points above mentioned Mr. 
Hansen has produced a very valuable book, which will be of the greatest 
service to those who are in any way interested in hybrid Orchids. This, 
of course, is not endorsing every detail, though we have no desire to detract 
from the merits of a work which contains so useful a summary of the 
results attained by the hybridist, we only wish the author had not given us 
so much to object to. Had he accepted the “advice and guidance” which 
he alludes to with “pleasure,” a good deal of it might have been avoided. 
ERIA BIFLORA. 
Although described in 1851 (Griff. Notul., iii., p. 302) this singular little 
species is still very imperfectly known, and it is therefore interesting to note 
that it has re-appeared in the collection of H. J. Elwes, Esq., of Coles- 
