NOTES ON SOME CURIOSITIES OF ORCHID BREEDING. 477 



Zygopetalum X Lycaste. 

 (1) Zygopetalum Mackayi ? x Lycaste Skinneri $ . "A few 

 seedlings," raised by Mr. Seden for Messrs. Veitch & Sons, 

 " which all flowered pure Z. Mackayi." (In litt. , September 25, 

 1897.) 



These curious generic crosses are particularly interesting, and 

 are perhaps the strangest in the history of hybridisation. They 

 are analogous to the three curious offspring of Epidendrum 

 radicans mentioned above, being similar in some respects, but 

 they are not parallel cases, because in other respects they differ 

 much. In the offspring of E. radicans some traces of modification 

 are apparent to the most casual observer, but in these there does 

 not seem to be the faintest or slightest trace of the other parent. 

 In the offspring of E. radicans the father parent was the pre- 

 dominant one, and therefore there could be no chance of 

 accidental self-fertilisation or parthenogenesis, whereas in these 

 we are now dealing with it is the mother parent which is all 

 powerful; and it is quite open for the sceptic to suggest that 

 these curious results are due to self- fertilisation, or that they 

 were produced without the aid of pollen. But, on the other 

 hand, it is easy to show that self-fertilisation is out of the 

 question in all these crosses, and that in the Zygopetalum 

 crosses, at all events, parthenogenesis is equally out of court. 



With regard to self -fertilisation : — (a) Mr. Grey writes 

 that in his Phragmipedium x Paphiopedium " the pollen was 

 removed from the seed -bearing plant before the flower was fully 

 expanded." ("Orchid Hybrids," p. 189.) (b) Zygopetalum x 

 Odontoglossum and Lycaste. Mr. Seden writes : " I am quite 

 sure the pollen was removed from the Z. Mackayi in every case." 

 (c) Zygopetalum x Oncidium. Mr. Eichel writes : "I have so 

 much confidence . . . that the probabilities of self -fertilisation of 

 the Zygopetalum flower is out of the question," and Rev. F. D. 

 Horner writes : " I am confident of one thing, and that is that no 

 pollen of the seed-parent (the Zygopetalum) had any part in the 

 production of these seedlings." So that in all these cases it is 

 manifest that self-fertilisation is a broken reed to lean upon for 

 an explanation. 



Perhaps I might here point out the difference between these 

 cases and the Cypripedium curiosities mentioned before, which I 

 have attributed to accidental self-fertilisation. 



