242 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
a plant which has flowered in the collection of R. I. Measures, Esq... . 
it only confirms my suspicion that we have a distinct species, and not a 
variety of C. insigne, to deal with. C. insigne and its numerous varieties 
have spreading leaves, while the Siamese plant has more or less erect leaves, 
which, with other differences, render the two quite dissimilar ; and no one 
seeing the Siamese plant out of flower would think for a moment of C. 
insigne, but rather of a narrow-leaved form of C. philippinense. . . . . 
The differences which strike me most in the Siamese plant, in addition 
to the different habit, . . . are: the shorter scape, with smaller flower, 
of rather more rigid texture ; the less undulate dorsal sepal, with the regular 
white margin all round, and the darker spots confined to the centre of the 
basal half, where are also a number of darker green lines; the connate 
lateral sepals considerably larger than the lip; the shorter petals distinctly 
spotted at the base; the smaller stouter lip, which, like the petals, is more 
yellow in colour, and very glossy ; the smaller staminode, and, lastly, the 
different season of the year when the flowers are produced. Although the 
dorsal sepal and the central boss of the staminode bear some resemblance 
toC. insigne, . . . yet the lip is equally near to C. Druryi, while in 
general habit it is much nearer to the last named. All things considered, 
I think it entitled to rank as a distinct species, for which the name of C. 
Exul may be retained” (Rolfe in Lindenia, sub. t. 327). The various plants 
which have since flowered in different collections have served to confirm 
most of these remarks, and there is no longer any doubt of its distinctness. 
— + 
MASDEVALLIA FLORIBUNDA ABNORMAL. 
A VERY kable infl of Masdevallia floribunda has appeared at 
the Royal Botanic Garden, Glasnevin, under the charge of Mr. F. W- 
Moore, which has the appearance of one flower growing out of the centre of 
the other. On careful examination it is seen that the bract of the lower 
flower has remained confluent, first with the ovary, and then with the lateral 
sepals, which latter are not united to each other by their margins, but to 
either side of the bract.. The latter organ has also become petaloid, like the 
sepals, and is even densely spotted with brown in the same way. In fact, it 
looks like an additional sepal between the two lateral ones, for, like them, it 
has a free apex, but shorter and broader, and a tail, which, however, 1s 
only a line long, and represents the apiculus of the bract. In other respects 
the flower is perfect. The hose-in-hose ig is 
uppermost flower is stalked and a little exserted, and also without a bract, 
but as the lateral sepals of this one are confluent it is possible that this 
also is made up of the lateral sepals and the bract. 
R. A. R. 
