132 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
who remarked, ‘‘ This poor plant has no known parents; it is an orphan” 
—hence the name proposed. The author, however, suggested C. Druryi 
and C. Argus as the unknown parents. Of the former there can be no 
doubt ; and, from the character of the hybrid, it is almost equally certain 
that C. barbatum, not C. Argus, was the other parent. 
Zygopetalum x leopardinum also appeared without a record of its 
parentage, and Reichenbach could only suggest that Z. maxillare was prob- 
ably one parent. Colax jugosus has since been suggested as the other, 
which is just possible. It is a pretty little plant. 
Masdevallia x glaphyrantha is believed to have originated from M. 
infracta, crossed with the pollen of M. Barlzana, and it bears the strongest 
evidence of such a parentage. It is interesting to note that the two parents 
belong to different sections of the genus. 
Cypripedium x Tautzianum, the last of the five, was derived from C. 
niveum ? and C. barbatum 7, and was dedicated to F. G. Tautz, Esq., of 
Hammersmith. It is an elegant little plant, in which the characters of C. 
niveum are strongly represented. 
Calanthe x sanguinaria was raised in the collection of Sir Trevor 
Lawrence, Bart., of Burford, Dorking, but its parentage was unfortunately 
lost.. It is a handsome and brilliantly-coloured form, allied to C. x 
Veitchii. 
Two other very interesting events, which took place in 1886, complete 
our account for the year, both of which may be said to have established @ 
record. 
The first was the appearance of Lelia x lilacina, in the collection of 
F. A. Philbrick, Esq., of Oldfield. It appeared in an importation of L. 
crispa, but when it flowered it proved to be intermediate between that 
species and L. Perrinii, which grow together in South Brazil. Singulatly 
enough Lelia x Pilcheri, which flowered for the first time in 1864, es 
raised by Mr. Dominy from these very two species, and though L. * eo? 
showed one or two slight differences from L. x Pilcheri, Reichenbac 
remarked, ‘I believe it must be regarded as a variety of that might) 
beauty.” Thus its parentage was solved beforehand. 
The second event possesses a double interest, as the 
experiment undertaken to prove the origin of a wild plant, and a 
first successtul 
Iso the first 
artificial hybrid Phalzenopsis which flowered in cultivation. Wheat, in aie 
Phalenopsis x intermedia first appeared, as a solitary plant in @ by 
. sent 5) 
of P. Aphrodite (or P. amabilis, as it was then wrongly called), 
Thomas Lobb to Messrs. Veitch from the Philippines in the previous 6 
Lindley suggested that it might be a natural hybrid between that pe? 
and P. rosea. With a view to prove this hypothesis, Mr. Seden cro 2 
P. rosea with the pollen of P. Aphrodite, and when the resulting Eide : 
lowered for the first time, in 1886, it proved absolutely identical with ©: 
yeal ’ 
