Marcu, 1907.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 67 
Nomenclature botanice Vindobonensis in Actis falsis.”” He also alludes 
to the “ Vienna Index inhonestans, a very unfair thing, by which my correct 
names of plants cannot become synonyms,” and speaks of the date 1753 as 
the starting-point for genera as “a horrible fiction and mistake that I can- 
not accept as a scientific and honest man.” Well, 1753 is the date of the 
promulgation of the binomial system of nomenclature, and the result of 
going behind it resulted in the creation of thousands of unnecessary and 
useless names, and yet Dr. Kuntze alludes to his aim as being ‘‘ to make as 
few as possible changements of name.” Dr. Kuntze was the stormy petrel 
ef nomenclature, and we can only regret that his industry and abilities 
were not put to better use. But we can endorse the remark of M. Alwin 
Berger (Gard. Chron. 1907, i. p. 105) :—‘* However aggressive he was in his 
publications as regards nomenclature, he wasa pleasant kind-hearted friend 
to many, and ever ready to help and to allow the use of his rich library and 
herbarium.” 
EPIDENDRUM DENSIFLORUM. 
A PLANT of this species has just flowered at the Zurich Botanic Garden, 
and having been sent to Kew for determination by Dr. Schinz, the event 
justifies an attempt to clear up its much confused history. It was origin- 
ally figured and described in the Botanical Magazine, in 1840 (t. 3791), by 
Sir William Hooker, from a specimen which flowered in the collection of 
the Duke of Bedford, at Woburn, in September, 1839, and is said to have 
been sent from Mexico by John Parkinson, H.B.M. Consul there. Lindley 
afterwards (Fol. Orch. Epid. p. 60) made it a synonym of his E. polyan- 
thum, but if he is correct in citing Batem. Orch. Mex. et Guat. t. 34 as 
representing that species (I have not seen Paron’s original specimen) the 
two are quite distinct. He, however, also cites it in the same work (p. 91) 
as a synonym of E. floribundum, H.B.K., which is again different, so that 
he clearly did not understand it correctly. Reichenbach, in 1862 
(Walp. Ann. vi. pp. 379, 413), repeated the mistake, though he afterwards 
claimed Bot. Mag. t. 3791 as representing his E. agathosmicum (as written 
upon the Kew copy). This name appeared in 1849 (Linnea, xxii. p. 841), 
and consequently is antedated by E. densiflorum by nine years. 
E. agathosmicum was collected at Carraccas, by Moritz, and is said to 
have snow-white flowers, but those that I have seen agree with the above 
in having light green sepals and petals and a white lip. The species: is 
allied to E. floribundum, H.B.K. (Bot. Mag. t. 3637), which has a much 
laxer inflorescence, and some purple dots on the lip, with a pair of linear 
diverging lobes in front. The Mexican habitat requires confirmation. 
ea 
