168 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
such hybrids are absurd. Over a thousand miles separate Phalznopsis 
tetraspis from P. Lueddemanniana, and P. speciosa is separated by 200 
miles from its nearest allied species. Again, how nearly allied to these 
plants are Phalznopsis sumatrana and P. Marie, but they also are confined 
to the special islands in which they grow. 
The evident disadvantages of the mistakes above commented on being 
copied from book to book must be my excuse for troubling you with these 
notes. It appears to me to be a mistake to repeat erroneous surmises of 
the late Professor Reichenbach which never had any reliable basis. Mr. 
Hansen's book seems to have been compiled with great care, and in making 
these remarks I in no way intend to disparage it. The errors I point out are 
not his, but are errors copied from previous works. 
Emeric S. DERsEE 
[We think there was no excuse for including Dendrobi 
in the list of hybrids, as the suggestion thrown out by S ojabenkack 4 in 1876 
(Xen: Orch., II., p. 210) has not been repeated—at all events in any 
important work—and the author himself omitted all reference to it in the 
following year (Gard. Chron., 1877, vii., p. 334). At the present day the 
suggestion is absurd, and it is certainly not a variety of D. Aphrodite. D. 
Donnesiz is only a form of D. infundibulum, and shows no trace of the 
influence of D. formosum, as we should have pointed out before had we 
happened to have seen it. We consider D. formosum to be specifically distinct 
from D. infundibulum, but we cannot say as much for D. Jamesianum. 
There does not appear to be any reason for supposing that D. Wattii is a 
natural hybrid, and the remark about Phalenopsis speciosa is very well 
described by General Berkeley as absurd. There are a number of other 
plants wrongly included by Mr. Hansen as natural hybrids, even after the 
errors have been pointed out, of which Cattleya velutina may be taken as 
an example, and we fully agree in thinking it a mistake to repeat these 
mistakes. Such plants might have been included in a list headed ‘‘ doubt- 
ful or erroneous,” but are out of place elsewhere.—Ep.] 
CATTLEYA FLY. 
I HAVE watched with interest the observations in your journal since 
January regarding this pest, and agree with you and Mr. Millington that it 
is the black fly, and not Mr. Hamilton’s (p. 87) “‘ blue and yellow markings.” 
Early last year I bought established plants of Cattleya from a nursery- 
man, and they literally swarmed with it in all stages; but, being a novice, 
it was some time before I discovered it. From these many of my old stock 
got it, including Lelias. After twelve months’ careful watching and cutting 
I got rid of it, leaving me many dilapidated plants. 
