THE ORCHID REVIEW. jot 
CYPRIPEDIUM x THAYERIANUM. 
“ HORTICULTURE is said to be progressive, and we venture to think that 
botany or botanical nomenclature is also, and if the attempts constantly 
made to classify and re-arrange the work of the hybridist are to be taken 
seriously, ordinary cultivators will never be able to keep pace with the 
progress. Cypripedium Boxallii has for nineteen years been generally 
regarded as a well-marked variety of C. villosum. The flower is different 
structurally, and there appears to be no evidence of forms merging into the 
type species, but a late writer on the subject, Hansen in The Orchid 
Hybrids, has suddenly decided that C. Boxallii must henceforth be con- 
sidered the same as C. villosum, and a host of hybrids having the former 
for one parent must then be considered as synonyms, and cultivators will 
have to begin to learn over again the names of the plants they possess. C. 
X Thayerianum is one of these; it is the result of a cross between C. 
Lawrenceanum and what is known as C. Boxallii atratum, a dark form, 
having the large flowers and rich wine colouring of C. Lawrenceanum, with 
the high polish of C. Boxallii atratum over the whole surface of the flower, 
Among hybrid Cypripediums it is considered one of the best, and it 
improves each year in size and colouring, is of healthy vigorous growth, and 
was raised by the Messrs. Sander, of St. Alban’s, England. It remains to be 
seen whether Mr. Hansen’s many innovations will be generally accepted by 
botanists, but from the cultivator’s standpoint it will make confusion worse 
confounded. The above is only one of the many reforms suggested.”— 
E. O. Orpet in Garden and Forest, August 26th, p. 348. 
[This touches on a point which has been referred to us on two or three 
different occasions, namely, whether Cypripedium Boxallii is a distinct 
species or only a variety of C. villosum, and it opens the old question, 
““What constitutes a species?” to which an answer was attempted at 
page 266 of our last volume. Those who agree with the line of argument 
there adopted will probably agree with us in regarding C. Boxallii as 
distinct from C. villosum, at least as a sub-species, and not a mere variety. 
We lave seen hundreds of plants of both, but never yet saw one of which 
there could be any doubt to which it belonged. And there are several 
spécies of Cypripedium which have been crossed with both Cc. villsart and 
C: barbatum, and we believe that in every case the hybrids are distinct too. 
Compare C. X Lathamianum and C. x Calypso, C. x Harrisianum and 
C. x apicul Fein: i m and C. X Godseffianum, ‘for 
example. It was not Mr. Hansen who first reduced C. Boxallii as a variety 
of C. villosum, and even he has arranged the hybrids of les sd separately 
in a supplementary note on pages 184-186, so hoes it is still —_— to oe 
the respective hybrids of each from the work. Until it can be shown 
