168 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
NOTICE OF BOOK... 
Les Orchidées. By D. Bois, Assistant de la Chaire de Culture au Muséum 
_ d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; 8vo, 323 pages, 119 figures. J. B. 
Balliére et fils, 19, Rue Hautefeuille, Paris. 
We have just received a copy of this handy little volume, of the “ Biblio- 
théque des Connaisances Utiles”’ series, containing a selection of the most 
ornamental species of Orchids suitable for cultivation, with references to 
published figures and descriptions, native countries, and a short account of 
their culture. Also a synoptical table of genera, a brief account of their 
structure and geographical distribution, economic uses, etc., with an index. 
Beginners who can read French will find in this work a large amount of 
useful information, chiefly compiled from the larger works. It travels over 
rather a wide field, with the inevitable result that some of the articles are 
yery much condensed, especially those devoted to cultural operations, which 
might well have been amplified at the expense of some of the other matter. 
The genera are arranged systematically, in the order of Bentham and 
Hooker’s Genera Plantarum, and. the species alphabetically. We «would 
avoid looking too critically at a compilation of this kind, though one would 
hardly have expected to see the old error about three sexes of Catasetum 
repeated at the present day, nor yet to find-Mormodes luxatum: enumerated 
as a Catasetum. Nor is it clear why Cymbidium Hookerianum -and C. 
Lowianum are made varieties of C. giganteum, considering that Vanda 
tricolor and V. suavis are kept distinct. Cypripedium neo-guineense and 
Lelia domingensis are wrongly attributed to Lindley, but we are pleased to 
see that Selenipedium is kept distinct from Cypripedium, as it certainly 
should be. Under Odontoglossums crispum, luteopurpureum, and odoratum, 
several synonyms are cited which do not belong there, some being natural 
hybrids, and as the figures cited are enumerated separately from the 
synonyms (as throughout the book) one might turn to every figure cited 
before finding the one Sought for. The figures are very unequal, a few being 
good, but the majority quite the reverse. F igures 5 and go are identical, 
and do not represent. Oncidium Juridum at all, but a species of a totally 
 Gilferent section, probably O. tetrapetalum. The habit of O. Papilio is aust 
unlike that represented at fig, 91, while the inflorescence of Vanilla planifolia 
= hardly approximately correct. English readers will be surprised to learn 
(inter alia) that Cypripedium Morganiz realised 4,250 francs, and Vanda 
Sanderiana 4,500 francs, at Covent Garden Market (‘‘ vendues sur le marché 
nes Covent Garden”’),  In- Several respects the work is capable of D ccad 
siderable improvement, and will doubtless be subject to revision in a future 
became It nevertheless contains much valuable information, and will 
‘prove useful to those to whom the larger works are inaccessible. cs 
