THE ORCHID REVIEW. 265 
DIES ORCHIDIANZA. 
AT last we know something about that mysterious plant, Cattleya Rex, 
which I see is flowering all around us, and I confess I am agreeably sur- 
prised to find it as distinct as it is. Nominally, it may be said to have 
appeared in 1890, but we are assured that it was discovered by M. J. Linden 
half a century earlier, and that Wallis met with it thirty years later, but did 
not succeed in sending living plants to Europe. Two collectors also have 
at different times been sent for it, but without success. And no wonder, 
when we consider how it grows in the most inaccessible locality, and that 
‘not only the plants, but the collectors have to be carried for several days 
on the backs of Indians,” over precipitous rocks, &c., the result being better 
imagined than described. However, now they have got used to this sort of 
thing—I mean the collectors, not the plants—things are looking up, and as 
another firm has also imported it, the species is becoming more common 
with us. I have not yet discovered the ancient records—Orchidacee Linde- 
nian@ is silent, except about Cattleya Mossie—and of course there will be 
records, unless the secret was remarkably well kept. 
However, now we have it, and a beautiful Cattleya it is, if not exactly 
what we expected it to be. And it flowers at a time which makes it par- 
ticularly useful, when the early-flowering Cattleyas are about over. There 
is a distinct shade of yellow or creamy buff in most of the flowers which 
makes a pleasing variety, and the lip is very handsome, though not veined 
as strongly as was anticipated. But I question if it has yet reached its full 
development, for among the many plants seen I have yet to find one with a 
raceme of six flowers, a lip two and a half inches broad, and an expanse of 
six and a half inches from tip to tip of the petals as in one of the plates 
which has been issued. The presumption of course was that a plant known 
half a century ago must have appeared before in some shape or form, but of 
this we have no evidence. Some of these days we may learn something 
more about its habitat. 
A contemporary, speaking about Phaius Sanderianus, calls attention to 
the nomenclature question, and ‘‘ wishes for some very decided system of 
nomenclature which would determine the doubtful titles now occurring, not 
only in this genus, but throughout the whole order.” The trouble is that 
some authorities consider this plant a variety of P. Blumei, which itself has 
been reduced to a variety of P. grandifolius, and yet in the records of the 
R. H. S. awards P. Sanderianus is stated to be a species. All this is 
naturally very confusing. And now for the remedy. ‘‘It appears to be 
quite time that another Orchid Conference should be held with a view to 
comparing species and varieties, for the purpose of reducing the chaos of 
