8 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
NOTICE OF BOOK. 
The Orchid Hybrids: E tion and Classification of all hybrids of Orchids. 
By Grorce Hansen, Jackson, Amador County, California, 8vo., pp. 257- 
London, Dulau & Co., Soho Square. Berlin, Friedlander & Sohn, 
Carlstrasse. 
WE cannot all follow the same vocation. ‘While one man is engaged 
to prove the extent of this mundane sphere, another, his neighbour, is 
planting the potatoes, which serve as his food.” Mr. Hansen has both 
proved his own existence and indicated his vocation—or, at all 
events, one of them, for he seems to combine the role of historian, critic, 
philosopher, and preacher, all in one, though we can hardly undertake to 
prove the assertion within the limits of a short notice. For this the reader 
must go to the book itself. Indeed, we might almost head our remarks 
with the words, “First notice,” were we to attempt a complete review of 
its contents. Its general character, however, will be readily inferred from 
the title. The nucleus of the work was collected in 1884, when the author 
was actively engaged among the subjects of which he treats, and has been 
continually receiving additions up to the present time, under circumstaces 
which can easily be imagined when he sorrowfully alludes to himself as one 
“who has not seen an Orchid for years.” The first 75 pages consists of 
various introductory matters, and the remainder of an enumeration of the 
various hybrids known, forming altogether an encylopedia of valuable 
information respecting hybrid Orchids. It is dedicated to Dr. Maxwell 
T. Masters, F.R.S. 
It is to the latter part of the work that one naturally turns for a 
justification of its existence, and we may at once say that with two rather 
important exceptions Mr. Hansen has done his work well. ‘aking 
Cypripedium, for example (omitting Selenipedium, which is very properly 
kept separate), we find over seventy pages devoted to it. First comes an 
alphabetical list of synonyms with their equivalents (this we should have 
placed at the end); then one of the species used in crossing, with the 
resulting hybrids ; and, finally, a list of the hybrids themselves. As to the 
information given, we may take the first hybrid raised as an example :—- 
““Calanthe Dominii, Lindl. (Masuca 9 x furcata). Dominy, for Veitch, 
Exeter, G. Ch., 1858, i., p. 4. fg. Bot. Mg., t. 5042. Seed obtained 1854, 
flowered 1856.” This is fulland concise (though the “i” in G. C. reference 
is unnecessary, and one has to think a moment before discovering that 
“fg.” means *‘fig.””). And this leads us up to our first little grumble. The 
author in the great majority of cases uses this style of reference :— G. Ch., 
Oct. 23, ’86” (Cattleya x calummata), “O. R., Oct. 94” (Cattleya x 
Hardyana). If one wishes to turn up the original information he must 
