THE ORCHID REVIEW. 231 
plants. In the letter-press I could never find any allusion to a panicled 
inflorescence, the more since it is thus described—‘and terminating in a 
loose open spike of several showy flowers.’ Now imagine my stupefaction 
when reading that our excellent ‘W. H. F.’ claims for himself the 
advantage of having represented the now famous panicled Disa! Is 
‘ J. Andrews’ an alias of ‘W.H.F.’? Perhaps—it overpowers my mind: 
Je n’y vois que du feu ” (/.c., pp. 340, 341). 
Mr. Fitch finally replied :—‘‘ I congratulate the facetious Professor on 
the remarkable discovery that the plate of the branched Disa grandiflora in 
Mr. Warner’s work was not one of the perpetrations of W. H. F., who 
ventured, perhaps rashly, to express his belief therein. . . . . Far be 
it from me to defend branched spikes; the plants that indulge in such 
abnormal freaks can have little respect for their characters. As the 
Professor informs us, they do not occur abroad, it may be that they have 
the fear of the law before them; but this is a free country, and at the 
risk of throwing M. Rchb. f. into an agony of doubt, it is my painful 
duty to inform him that Mr. R. Warner flowered the branched spike of 
Disa grandiflora, and that he has now growing two-flowered spikes of 
Cypripedium hirsutissimum, and also of Lycaste Skinneri” (l.c., p. 389). 
Thus, very unsatisfactorily, ends this little discussion, for, in spite of the 
final flourish, we have Mr. Fitch’s own testimony that he had never seen 
such a plant. He merely “‘ ventured to introduce,” &c. (the ‘‘ two flowers” 
evidently means two branches), because he had been “informed,” &c. 
Whether Mr. Warner was his informant does not appear, but as the plant 
was Mr. Warner’s, it is obvious that the spike from which the drawing was 
made was not branched. We shall be glad if any of our readers can 
forward such a specimen, or give satisfactory evidence of having seen one; 
for until then we entertain a healthy scepticism in the matter, though by 
no means denying the possibility of the occurrence of such a specimen 
under exceptional conditions. Branching in the Ophrydez is only known 
-in abnormal specimens. 
CYPRIPEDIUM x GODEFROY. 
For a considerable time an idea has been gaining ground that Cypripedium 
Godefroye is a natural hybrid, and long before Mr. Chapman contributed 
a note on the subject to these pages (vol. v., p. 75), I had examined the 
question, though the evidence obtained did not seem quite conclusive. 
Now, however,I have been able to examine two very interesting artificial 
hybrids from the collection of H. Druce, Esq., of St. John’s Wood, which 
throw further light on the question, hence the following notes. 
Cypripedium Godefroy first flowered in Europe in 1883, the plants 
