June, 1906.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 163 
Both Mr. Thompson and his gardener, however, had stated on oath that 
the plant of Calos, purchased from M. Linden in 1896, was still living, 
although it had not flowered since its delivery. 
The defendants, in the course of the arrangements for the sale, verbally 
stated that they placed the varieties ‘ Vinicius,” ‘‘ Constellatum,” and 
“* Aramis” in the same class as “‘ Luciani,” “ Lindeni,” and ‘‘ Quo Vadis,” 
that ‘‘ Vinicius” greatly resembled the variety “Quo Vadis,” the only 
-difference being in the shape of the spots, that the varieties ‘‘Calos”” and 
“* Funambulum” were of the first order, and that the two latter were 
unique plants, no other examples existing in cultivation. The experts upon 
the various questions submitted to them expressly declared as follows :— 
No culture could succeed in making the four Orchids which have pro- 
‘duced the flowers obtained by the plaintiff give other flowers identical with 
the water-colour paintings and plates sent by the defendant for the purpose 
of concluding the transaction. 
The flowers which have been produced and which are possible to be 
produced by the varieties “‘ Funambulum,” ‘‘ Constellatum,” ‘‘ Calos,’”’ and 
** Vinicius’? could never be placed in the same class as ‘* Luciani,” 
“* Lindeni,” and “‘ Quo Vadis.” 
_ The varieties of crispum in dispute can never be classed as varieties of 
‘Odontoglossum crispum of the first order. 
An Odontoglossum crispum has certain fixed characters, features of 
identity, which do not disappear, even under the worst culture. 
In consequence of this fact, an expert, on the examination of the flower 
‘produced by a remarkable variety well known to him, can say whether or 
no this flower has been produced by the Orchid in question, no matter how 
bad the cultivation has been. 
The fact that, on the receipt of the flower of ‘.Constellatum,” the 
-defendants did not pretend that they could not recognise in this flower the 
special characters of the variety sold by them, constituted an acknowledg- 
ment that the plant which had produced that flower was the same that they 
had delivered. 
The Tribunal therefore gave judgment on the following points :— 
The charge made against the experts of irregular proceedings in con- 
nection with their report appeared unfounded. 
The Tribunal having heard both parties, could not call other experts if 
they considered that the present ones had sufficiently enlightened them. 
It was necessary for the Tribunal to call these experts, and to follow 
their report in such a special case. 
The capacity, integrity, and disinterestedness of the experts could not 
be questioned, one of them having been described by the defendants on 
April zoth, rg04, as a distinguished connoisseur. 
