THE ORCHID REVIEW. 231 
What’s this I see? ‘One hundred lots of Eulophiella Elisabethe 
. received direct, for unreserved sale, on Friday next, July 27th, at half- 
past 12 o’clock.” Received direct, too! Whatever will M. Hamelin say? 
A year ago I read, ‘‘ Excepting young and very small plants, no more 
Eulophiella are to be found, and the plants left will be guarded by my 
brother-in-law until they may be wanted by me. At least several years 
must elapse before these small plants are large enough to gather. Amateurs 
of this superb Orchid may be sure that no plants can or will be imported. 
I can guarantee that no man can collect them. My brother-in-law’s will is 
absolute in the country of the Eulophiella.””. These new one hundred lots, 
received direct, form a rather curious comment on the above remarkable 
story, to which I have already had occasion to allude at page tor. I 
should think its real value is pretty well understood by this time. 
I have had occasion already to allude to the nomenclature question, and 
now I am. glad to see, in a recent number of Garden and Forest, a protest 
against the long names used in some cases to indicate a variety. A varietal 
name is desirable and necessary in many cases, but when it requires three 
and four names to indicate it, as in some recent cases, the whole thing 
becomes a farce. I think the variety question is being overdone, and 
needs to be reconsidered in several respects, for I frequently discover the 
same variety in different collections under different names, which is ex- 
tremely confusing. I may have to recur to the subject on a future 
occasion. 
ARGUS. 
SARCOCHILUS UNGUICULATUS. 
This is at once the new Phalznopsis fugax (Kranzlin in Gard. Chron., 
1893, ii. p. 360) and the old Sarcochilus unguiculatus (Lindl. Bot. Reg., xxvi., 
Misc., p. 67), though its relation to the former genus is visionary. It was 
originally sent from Manilla by Mr. Cuming, and flowered with Mr. Bateman 
in 1840. Last year, on its appearance in the collection of Sir Trevor 
Lawrence, Bart., Burford, Dorking, it was described as a Phalezenopsis with a 
new type of labellum. The flowers are very pale yellow, with some light 
purple stripes on the side-lobes of the lip. It is a well-known species, but 
not sufficiently attractive to be cultivated except in a few botanical collec- 
tions, especially as the flowers only remain open for a few hours. Mr. 
White's observations on this point are interesting—namely, that they open 
about nine in the morning, and begin to fade at two or three o’clock in the 
afternoon—for the fact was not so definitely recorded before. It is hardly 
necessary to add that it is not a Phalenopsis at all, and that the new name 
must be relegated to the already far too extensive ‘‘ Index Expurgatorius.”’ 
