June 6th, 1885. 
THE GARDENING WORLD. 
631 
barren. Lrelia anceps appears to be an exception, 
for it seeds freely whether crossed with a Cattleya or 
with any of the Brazilian Laslias. The period from 
the germinating of the seed to the appearance of the 
first flower varies immensely in the different crosses, 
thus Lselia triophthalma raised from seed sown in 
1875 flowered in 1883, this is the shortest period 
known to us; Lselia caloglossa from seed sown in 
1858 flowered for the first time in 1877, or nineteen 
years, this is the longest period known ; the others 
have taken periods that may be said to average from 
ten to twelve years. 
Among Cypripeds some very curious facts have 
been elicited through muling. Thus, the East Indian 
species cross freely with each other, and a numerous 
progeny has resulted therefrom. The South American 
species, the Selenipedia, as they are called, also cross 
freely with each other, and many new forms have 
been obtained; the hybrids in both sections flower 
within a few years from the seed being sown. But in 
the case of the crossing of Indian with South American 
species, the process has been much slower in 
producing results. An infinitely smaller percentage of 
the seed germinates, and those seedlings that survive 
are so slow in arriving at the flowering stage, that up 
to the present time not a single plant has produced 
a flower, although the plants continue strong and 
healthy in appearance and increase in size every 
year. One thing is certain, the three-celled ovary of 
the Selenipeds offers no impediment to fertilization by 
the pollinia of Cypripeds with a one-celled ovary, for 
we have plants raised from C. caudatum x C. 
barbatum, and many other like crosses between 
other species have yielded seed. 
Cypripedium Sedeni was a remarkable cross in 
many respects; it was in fact raised from two crosses, 
C. Schlimi x C. longifolium, and the same two vice 
versa. It will be observed that in this case, one of 
the parents, C. longifolium, is much more robust 
in habit and growth than the other parent, C. 
Schlimi. No perceptible difference, however, was 
observed between the plants raised from the two 
separate crosses, they agreed in habit, foliage, colour 
of flower, in fact in every particular. No such similar 
result has been obtained by us among Cypripeds. A 
vice versa cross between the same two species produces 
seedlings that vary more or less from those produced 
from the first cross. Thus C. tessellatum resulted 
from C. barbatum x C. concolor, and C. tessellatum 
porphyrium from C. concolor x C. barbatum. We 
have also an instance of two recognized species each 
being crossed by a third, but both crosses producing 
like results, thus C. longifolium x C. Schlimi, and C. 
Boezli x C. Schlimi, produced seedlings whose flowers 
are indistinguishable from each other, although as 
might be expected, the foliage of the C. Boezli progeni 
is like that of its parents, the more robust of the two ; 
hence the specific rank of C. Boezli is very question¬ 
able. 
Not only do recognized species of each section, East 
Indian and South American, cross freely inter se, but 
the hybrids also cross freely with them. The 
beautiful C. Genanthum superbum has for its parents 
C. Harrisianum, itself a hybrid, and C. insigne Maulei. 
As regards the habit and foliage of hybrid Cypripeds, 
the progeny usually takes a form intermediate between 
the two parents, but sometimes it is more robust than 
either. 
Large as is the field offered by the great genus Dendro- 
biumfor the operations of the hybridist, comparatively 
little has yet been effected. Dominy raised the hybrid 
that bears his name many years ago in our Exeter 
Nursery. It was followed some years later by D. 
Ainsworthi, which appeared in Dr. Ainsworth’s 
collection at Manchester in 1874. Plants of the same 
cross raised by West having appeared about the same 
time in the Fairfield Nursery, near Manchester, and 
later, in the collection of Mr. Brymer, at Dorchester, 
by another operator, the parents being D. aureum x 
D. nobile. Subsequently Seden raised D. splendi- 
dissimum from the same cross, and still later, Mr. 
Swann obtained D. Leeehianum from D. nobile x D. 
aureum, or the vice versa of the others. The seedlings 
raised from all the crosses are found to be variable ; 
members of one progeny approaching so closely 
varieties among the others, that the original distinc¬ 
tions set up between them cease to be appreciable, 
but without egotism, I venture to claim for splendi- 
dissimum larger flowers with more substance in sepals 
and petals, caused probably through our having 
hybridized finer varieties of the two parents. Never¬ 
theless, to avoid confusion, the progenies should, I 
think, to use an academical expression, be bracketed. 
Of the eight hybrid Dendrobes that have already 
flowered, D. nobile is one parent of five, and D. aureum 
of three of the same five, and of one other, so that 
only two, D. micans and D. rhodostoma have yet 
flowered that have a parentage in which neither 
nobile nor aureum participated. 
Crosses between species of Phaljenopsis have been 
effected by several operators, and capsules readily 
obtained. We only know, however, of three instances 
besides our own where seedlings were raised ; the 
first by Dodds, in 1868, in the collection of Sir John 
Grerille Smith, at Ashton Court, near Bristol, but 
they were afterwards lost; then Grey, gardener to the 
eminent orchidologist, Mr. Corning, of Albany, New 
York, raised some seedlings, but they, too, were 
afterwards lost; and, lastly, Mr. Hollington, at 
Enfield, who has, I believe, one seedling still living. 
Our own experience with Phalsenopsis dates from 1875; 
our first cross was between P. grandiflora and P. 
Schilleriana, but with that and with several succeeding 
crosses no results beyond the capsules were obtained. 
The first capsule to yield seedlings was gathered from 
P. grandiflora x P. rosea ; a few of these are still 
firing. Then we obtained a few from P. amabilis and 
P. rosea, which grew with more rigour than their 
elder brethren, and may not improbably flower within 
the next two years. Still later we obtained seedlings 
from P. Schilleriana x P. rosea, P. grandiflora x P. 
Luddemanniana, and from two or three other crosses. 
Calanthe has probably received attention from 
more operators than any other genus in the great 
Orehidean family, a circumstance that can be best 
accounted for by results being obtainable in a shorter 
period than from any other genus. It may be that 
Calanthe being more terrestrial than epiphytal, there 
is a predisposition to earlier maturity. The capsule 
of Calanthe usually ripens in three to four months, 
and the seed takes from two to three months more to 
germinate; the seedlings under favourable circum¬ 
stances will flower in the third or fourth year ; hence 
it happened that, although seedling Cattleyas were in 
existence before seedling Calanthes, the first hybrid 
Orchid to flower was a Calanthe. Calanthe Yeitchi 
flowered for the first time in 1859, and was at that 
time believed to be a true bigeneric cross, but such 
it cannot be now regarded, as Mr. Bentham, in The 
Genera Plantarum, has referred the pollen parent, 
Limatodes rosea, to Calanthe. Not so, however, is 
Phaius irroratus, raised by Dominy from P. grandi- 
folius x Calanthe nivalis, and P. irroratus purpureus, 
raised by Seden from P. grandifolius x Calanthe 
vestita rubro-maculata, and a third progeny that has 
not yet flowered, which was obtained by the last- 
named hybridizer from Phaius 'grandifolius and 
Calanthe Yeitchi. These are entitled to be called 
bigeneric crosses. In one of the cases only a single 
plant was raised, and in each of the other two the 
number was very restricted. It is a curious fact, too, 
that in habit, aspect, and in other respects the progeny 
is well nigh intermediate between two parents, being 
neither evergreen like Phaius, nor deciduous like 
Calanthe. 
Masdevallias were taken in hand at an early date, 
but failures were frequent, caused probably by the fact 
that Masdevallia, as a genus, is far more heterogenous 
than was at first supposed, whence a mixture of the 
different sections may not possibly be effected. M. 
Chelsoni was at length raised from M. amabilis x M. 
Yeitchiana; then M. Fraseri from M. ignea x M. 
Lindeni, by Mr. Fraser, of Derncleugh, Aberdeen ; but 
the seedlings were reared by us; and lastly, M. 
Gairiana from M. Yeitchiana x M. Darisi. Capsules 
have been obtained from M. Veitchiana x M. infracta, 
M. polysticta x M. tovarensis, M. Harryana x M. 
Veitchiana, and a few others, but all attempts to 
intermix M. chimsera and its allies with the brilliant 
flowered species have proved fruitless. 
Great as is the difficulty of raising seedlings from 
Orchids requiring a high temperature for their culti¬ 
vation, it is still greater in the case of those that 
receive “ cool treatment,” if we except Masdevallia. 
Odontoglossum affords a striking instance of this, 
paradoxical as it may seem, especially as so many 
undoubted natural hybrids between different species 
of this genus have appeared among the importations 
of the last ten years. Numerous crosses between 
various species, both Mexican and New Granadian, 
have been effected, and capsules with apparently good 
seed have been produced, but with the utmost care 
that could be bestowed, no progeny has yet been raised. 
Mr. Cookson, of Newcastle, has, indeed, stated in 
The Garden, of February 10, 1883, that he succeeded 
in raising a fine lot of Odontoglossum seedlings, of 
which the pollen parent was O. crispum and the seed 
parent either 0. gloriosum or 0. Uro-Skinneri, but 
which he was not quite sure. He has since informed 
us that all of them have perished. And so with the 
Miltonias, usually classed with Odontoglossum, and 
grown in an average higher temperature, as vexil- 
larium, Boezli, and Phaleenopsis. The only seedlings 
we have been able to raise were obtained from a 
cross between the two last named, and these were 
unfortunately lost within a few months after the 
germination of the seed. I may here note that the 
late Mr. Bentham, when working up the Orchideas for 
The Genera Plantarum, must, I think, have been 
misinformed when he states under Miltonia vexillarium, 
p. 563, that “ fide hortulanorum facile cum 
Odontoglossis variis nec cum Miltoniis genuis proles 
hybridas gignunt.” Our experience is the very 
opposite of this. Vexillarium crosses readily with the 
flat-lipped Miltonias, as spectabilis, although thus far 
we have failed to raise any progeny from these crosses, 
but not with the true Odontoglots; often as it has 
been attempted, no capsules are produced. Thus, 
while our experience in muling among Odontoglots 
goes far to disprove the statement I have just quoted, 
it at the same time confirms unmistakably Mr. 
Bentham’s view as to the proper generic place of 
vexillarium and its allies Roezli, Phalfenopsis, and 
Warscewiczi. 
It will be gathered from what I have already said 
that our hybridizing operations have extended 
over a rather wide field; that they have not been 
confined to the crossing of different species 
of the same genus, but hundreds of experiments 
have been made between species of different 
genera. The question thence naturally arises: 
How will these bigeneric crosses affect the stability of 
the genera as at present circumscribed ? And, what 
changes of nomenclature will be necessary to place 
the Orchideaa on an intelligible basis as regards 
names ? Glancing over the whole range of our 
operations, and the results obtained from them, I may 
safely reply that thus far the stability of the genera 
is scarcely affected, and the changes in nomenclature 
need be very few indeed. Leaving the progeny derived 
from species of Cattleya x Laslia out of consideration, 
the last-named genus being confessedly an artificial 
one, only two bigeneric hybrids have yet flowered; 
these I have mentioned above, Phaius irroratus, and P. 
irroratus purpureus. Many years ago, Dominy raised 
Ancectochilus Domini from Goodyerii discolor and 
Anoectochilus xanthophyllus, and Goodyerii Veitchi 
from G. discolor and Anoectochilus Veitchi. Plants 
derived from both crosses are still in cultivation, but 
the names they bear are simply garden names. TVe 
have plants, but which have not yet flowered, raised 
from Cattleya Trianae, crossed with Sophronitis grandi¬ 
flora, and from Cattleya intermedia crossed with the 
same species of Sophronitis. We have, besides, a 
seedling whose parents are Cattleya Trianse and 
Brassavola Digbyana, but as the last-named is now 
referred to Lariia, this can hardly be regarded as a 
bigeneric cross. With these few cases I have exhausted 
the fist. But when we enumerate the capsules with 
apparently good seed that have been obtained from 
bigeneric crosses, but from which no seedlings have 
been raised, the fist is somewhat more formidable. 
Some of the most remarkable of these were produced 
by Acanthophippium Curtisii x Chysis bractescens, 
Bletia hyacinthina x Calanthe masuca, Chysis aurea 
x Zygopetalum Sedeni, Odontoglossum Bictonense x 
Zygopetalum maxillare, Zygopetalum Mackayi x 
Lycaste Skinneri. 
But on the other hand we have obtained a large 
number of capsules of the normal size, and to all 
appearances externally perfect, not only from bigeneric 
crosses, but also from crosses between species of the 
same genus which contained not a single seed. And, 
lastly, I may note that Zygopetalum Mackayi has been 
crossed with several species of Odontoglossum, and 
seedlings raised from some of the crosses, but every 
one that has yet flowered has proved to be simply 
Zygopetalum Mackayi. 
