THE ORCHID REVIEW. 35 
DIES ORCHIDIAN-. 
WuHaT a number of interesting events in the Orchid world have followed 
each other in rapid succession during the last few years. The rediscovery 
of the long-sought Cattleya labiata, which has quite transformed the aspect of 
our Orchid houses during the autumn months; the introduction in quantity 
of the superb Dendrobium Phalenopsis, fortunately as amenable to culti- 
vation as it is beautiful; and the discovery of the three fine Cypripediums, 
Rothschildianum, Chamberlainianum, and Charlesworthii, which have doubt- 
less secured a permanent place in our collections. The advent of Cattleya 
Victoria-Regina, C. Alexandre and Lelia tenebrosa may also be men- 
tioned, though the former has proved disappointing, owing to so many of the 
supposed plants proving to be something else. Cymbidium Tracyanum is 
also a superb novelty, whose origin is a mystery, as only a single plant is 
known—fit companion for the equally mysterious and beautiful Cypripedium 
Fairieanum. It is evident that Orchids are not yet past the zenith of their 
popularity. 
I confess to feeling a little disappointed in Cypripedium Chamberlainia- 
num. It is certainly distinct enough, and very pretty, but does it quite bear 
out what was written about it? “ Dorsal sepal yellowish white with six rosy- 
purple lines, . . . petals beautifully spotted with crimson.”” Why no men- 
tion of green, or purple-brown? Another description speaks of ‘numerous 
flowers coloured rosy-purple and white, in form not unlike those of C. 
spectabile,” which suggests one of the Sedeni group. The racemes may 
bear from twelve to twenty flowers or even more on a raceme, but ap- 
parently not at the same time. I remember when a fine dried specimen of 
Masdevallia racemosa was exhibited at the Sale Rooms, its long racemes with 
a flower at every bract. Why will the plant persist in only producing them 
one or two at a time, in strict succession? It would be far more imposing 
if the ingenious collector’s idea were carried out in Nature. The moral of 
it all is, however, that a description should at least bear some resemblance 
to the plant. 
Cattleya Alexandre has just been mentioned. The following note about 
it deserves to be reproduced: ‘‘ This is undoubtedly a distinct species of 
Cattleya, and while some of the forms are dull and unattractive in colour, 
others possess all the qualities of a first-rate garden Orchid.” This is 
interesting, as the writer formerly expressed very different views, first sus- 
pecting it to be C. Victoria-Regina, and then one of the worst of the guttata 
group. It is a little perplexing to the ordinary layman when some botanist 
describes a new plant possessing novel features, and some one else hastens 
to discredit it. And it must be equally unsatisfactory to the introducer, who 
doubtless greets such tardy justice with language appropriate to the 
occasion. 
