THE ORCHID REVIEW. 339 
ODONTOGLOSSUM UROSKINNERI ALBUM. 
Tue history of this curious plant was given at page 334 of our first volume, 
and two years later some further notes appeared (pp. 259, 290). The 
following account by Mr. De Barri Crawshay, of Rosefield, Sevenoaks, 
appeared in the Gardener’s Chronicle for October 17th (p. 456): ‘‘ This plant 
passed into my collection on October roth, 1893, and is now again in bloom 
for the second time; the 1893 spike was its first appearance. The history 
of this rarity is as follows:—In The Garden of August 21st, 1886, is a note 
mentioning that there are seedlings of Odontoglossum in Mr. Buchan’s 
collection at Southampton. At the sale of the collection General Berkeley, 
of Southampton, purchased the seedlings, that had grown fairly strong. In 
1893 the first plant bloomed. It appeared to be a white-lipped O. Uro- 
skinneri. The Orchid Committee gave it the A. M. under that name. 
There was diversity of opinion, but it was hoped that, given further time 
and more plants, blooming would prove it. 
“Tn 1895 Mr. E. Ashworth bought the remainder of this plant, as well as 
the other seedlings of the same batch. I have just had Mr. Ashworth’s 
letter saying none of his plants will bloom this season, much to my dis- 
appointment, for I hoped that 1896, being its tenth year, would settle the 
matter; but my plant is the only one out of the batch that has as yet 
bloomed. Referring to the correspondence I had with the late Mr. Buchan 
in August, 1886, I find that his gardener, Mr. Osborne, does not remember 
if he crossed the Uroskinneri flowers or whether it was merely self- 
fertilised. This is unfortunate, as there is but the plant to prove the 
second parent, and to those who are familiar with Orchid hybrids this is 
barely enough, for in many cases it is very hard to see which the parents 
were. With the plant now before me, as well as O. Uroskinneri (the known 
mother), and O. bictoniense, it is hard to prove, but easy to believe that O. 
Rossii had a hand in the deal, or perhaps O. X Humeanum, on account of 
the yellow sepals and petals. But the crest of the lip excludes O. Rossii 
in toto, for it is that of true Uroskinneri. The form, as well as the colour 
of the lip say “ Rossii” plainly enough ; so here are two “ points” in the 
chief segment of the bloom in direct opposition to each other. So the lip, 
barring its colour, is like that of Uroskinneri. Now we come to a pure 
yellow column, with form and wings like its mother. Where does the rosy 
colour go to, and where does the yellow come from under the influence of 
self-fertilisation ? So what is the column? Now the petals. These are 
narrower than in O. Uroskinneri; they are yellow, faintly dotted all over 
with a darker shade. How is the banding and aggregation of brown of O. 
Uroskinneri’s petals turned into dots all over the petal ? The sepals follow 
the same line as the petals, except the depth of keel on their backs. The 
