BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, ETC. 
155 
BOOK-NOTES, NEWS, etc. 
IT nder the title Schedules Orchidia nee Mr. Oakes Ames is pub¬ 
lishing a series of descriptions of new species of Orchids, with critical 
notes—many of them the result of his inspection of Lindley’s orchid 
herbarium at Kew. Nos. 1 (Nov. IS, 1822) and 2 (Jan. G, 1923) 
are devoted to tropical American species; in No. 3 (Jan. 30) is an 
interesting note relating to H. G. Reichenbach’s Herbarium, his 
disposition of which by will is cited, with the comment which it 
naturally inspired, in this Journal for 1889, p. 197. The note is as 
follows : “ Reference is made under jEpidendrum lut-eoroseum A. Rich. 
& Gal. [p. 16] to specimens and drawings of Achille Richard’s 
types which are to be found in H. G. Reichenbach’s Herbarium in 
Vienna. These specimens and drawings represent some of the 
Mexican species described by Richard and Galeotti in 1845. It 
would seem that this precious material was loaned to Reichenbacli by 
the Museum d’Histoire of Paris. That Reichenbacli intended to 
return this material to those who loaned it to him is indicated by the 
tracings he made from the coloured drawings of the habit and from 
the analytical drawings of the lloral structure of types. The tracings 
are now mounted on the same sheets that bear the drawings, a few 
of them actually superimposed on the originals. The most charitable 
view to take of this extraordinary situation is the one which leads us 
to believe that Reichenbach’s efforts to incorporate in his herbarium 
tracings of Richard’s species were interrupted by death, and that if 
he had lived he would have returned the originals. But it is difficult 
to overlook the motives which prompted Reichenbacli to have his 
herbarium, together with loaned specimens, sealed for a quarter of a 
century; that is, for a sufficient length of time to deprive his con¬ 
temporaries of its service and to interfere with the progress of 
orchidology. When death overtook the man w T ho criticised Achille 
Richard’s brevity and who attempted to outlaw T Richard’s species, his 
last will and testament put under lock and key the evidence on which 
some of Richard’s work was based. This is the explanation of the 
mysterious absence of many critical specimens and drawings for the 
Richard Herbarium in Paris” (pp. 1, 2). 
The Bureau of Science Publications (Manila) No. IS contains 
the first fascicles of the Enumeration of Philippine Plants which 
has been undertaken by Mr. Elmer D. Merrill. The scope of the 
work is so fully indicated in the note prefixed to each part that 
we cannot do better than reproduce it textually, only adding that the 
“ attempt ” has been carried out with the thoroughness which will be 
anticipated by all who know Mr. Merrill’s method :—“ The present 
enumeration is an attempt to summarise in convenient form for con¬ 
sultation our present knowledge of Philippine flowering plants, and 
represents a part of the knowledge accumulated by the author during 
a course of about twenty years’ study of the problem. In the work 
an attempt has been made to account for all the binomials accredited 
to the Philippine flora ; to adjust the synonymy when necessary; to 
include all important references to the Philippine botanical literature 
and essential references to extra-Philippine literature; to give the 
