pee es a 
NOVEMBER, 1907.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 339 
Kew by Mr. Richard Pfau, from Costa Rica, and this was made into two 
by the removal of a young growth that appeared at the top of an old pseudo- 
bulb. In the following April one of the plants produced a pendulous raceme 
of purple flowers, identical with those figured by Bateman, and in June the 
other produced a green flower, not, however, identical with the green one 
figured by Bateman. These were clearly the male and female flowers of 
the same species—for the sexual difference between the two kinds of 
flowers produced by two or three other species was by this time understood 
—and it became obvious that there was some error in Bateman’s figure, 
which showed two kinds of male flowers. 
A suspicion now arose of some error in the drawing of the green flowers, 
and as they were ‘‘still hanging to the stem” when the purple flowers 
afterwards appeared, I came to the conclusion that the artist had restored 
them by the help of some drawing of C. ventricosum, which indeed had 
been figured at plate 5 of the same work, the plant showing both male 
flowers and a seed capsule. I then wrote to Mr. Bateman, asking him 
‘whether he could confirm my suspicion. His reply was interesting, and he 
thought the suggestion was right, though he could not remember exactly how 
‘the drawing was made. Speaking of plate 5, he remarked: ‘‘ The pseudo- 
bulb which carried the capsule was all that came in the box, which I 
unpacked myself in the West India Docks early in June, 1836. I sent it 
down to Knypersley at once—my Orchid houses were furnaces then—and 
in the autumn it flowered as represented. No more plants of C. ventricosum 
‘were received until two years later, and then came as what ought to have 
‘been C. Egertonianum. And now we will pass on to plate 40, where both 
the mysterious racemes are shown as proceeding from the same pseudobulb, 
though, as you rightly remark, ‘it is clear that they were not borne 
simultaneously.’ But they followed each other after a short respite—I 
‘believe, in about three weeks—and I can positively assure you that they were 
‘watched as carefully as the Koh-i-noor‘tself. Never a day passed without 
™y inspecting them. As to the withered flowers, they remained many 
months on the plant, and were seen by many people, including Sir P. 
Egerton, after whom the species was called.” 
It is unfortunate that the flowers were not preserved, for they would 
certainly have cleared up the mystery. It is, however, evident that the 
purple and green flowers produced at Kew are, respectively, the male and 
female of C. Egertonianum, the latter being identical with those produced at 
Knypersley over half a century earlier. Lindley’s figure of the one that 
flowered at Westonbirt represents the two sexes of the same species on a 
Single raceme, and here the female is accurately represented, but it is not = 
Yentricosum, though considered to be such by Lindley. The two aun 
when not in flower are sufficiently alike to be confused together, and I think 
