THE ORCHID REVIEW. 365 
cate from the R.H.S. C. X Antigone alone seems to have had C. Law- 
renceanum for seed parent, and its worth may be estimated by the fact that 
it received a First-class Certificate at the hands of the R-H.S. Orchid 
Committee both in 1890 and 1891. C. X Telemachus received an Award 
of Merit in 1892. Bohnhof appears to be answerable for the name C. X 
Mrs. Harry Veitch (see Hansen's Orch. Hyb., p. 286). 
My personal experience of this cross is as follows:—During the years 
1891 to 1896 inclusive, I have crossed C. Lawrenceanum with the pollen of 
C. niveum on nine occasions, seven of these operations proving ineffectual, 
the remaining two producing two seedlings each. The reverse cross, I have 
attempted only once, when I was rewarded also with two seedlings. Ot these 
six seedlings only one appears to have made good headway, and this, having 
been discovered in May, 1895, looks vigorous and well. The foliage is fairly 
intermediate. 
C. X Jeanette recorded as a hybrid between C. X Leeanum @? and C. 
niveum ¢ (G. C., 1897, xxi. p. 278), and C. X niveo-Lowii is also recorded, 
Feb. 16th, 1895. 
W. H. Gower, in The Garden (1892, xli. p. 48) describes Cypripedium X 
La France, a hybrid between C. niveum and C. xX nitens, as “the most 
charming hybrid of the niveum group I have yet seen.” 
The crossing of C. niveum with C. philippinense, or its variety Roebeleni 
has produced C. X Vipani, x C. V. roseum, and possibly C. x V. var. 
Corningii, the former obtaining a First-class Certificate in 1892. About the 
last-named there is some doubt, although the picture given in the Orchid 
Review (v., p. 241) would lead one to believe that this parentage is correct. 
In the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, vol. xvi., p. 103, 
appears the following paragraph. ‘‘C. L. N. Ingram, Esq., Elstead House, 
Godalming (gr. Mr. T. W. Bond), showed Cypripedium xX _ striatum, 
stated to be C. niveum ? X C. lavigatum ¢, but bearing no trace of the 
latter species. It resembled C. X Tautzianum.” Is it a form of the latter 
or of C. X Vipanii ? 
REGINALD YOUNG. 
(To be continued.) 
DIES ORCHIDIANZ. 
Last February (p. 37) I had occasion to discuss what I suppose may be 
termed ‘‘ the great Cypripedium question,” and now I observe an illustrated 
article from the pen of the Comte de Kerchove in the November number 
of the Revue de L’Horticulture Belge (p. 246), in which the views of the 
different botanists who have written upon the question are summarised. 
