158 MR. R. A. ROLFE ON 
The value of such a system is at once apparent. To take the 
case of Phaius grandifolius, Lour., crossed with the pollen of Ca- | 
lanthe vestita, Wall. These two genera are placed by Bentham in 
distinct subtribes, and at least are sufficiently distinct, whether 
the subtribal difference be maintained or not. But when the 
hybrid flowered, it was described by Prof. Reichenbach* as 
Phaius irroratus X ; and this author then reduced Calanthe ves- 
tita, Wall., to Phaius vestitus, Reichb. f.; thus removing the plant 
from its immediate allies, and placing it in a position for which 
there is no justification. On the same grounds, the distinction 
between Cattleya and Lelia has been held to be merely an arti- 
ficial one, and Sophronitis abandoned, except for a single species, 
which does not materially differ from the remaining ones, and 
should stand or fall with them. Ifthe future naming of bigeneric 
hybrids is to be conducted on these principles, there is no telling 
where we shall ultimately be landed, as the list is likely to be 
considerably augmented in the future. 
On the other hand, we have the course adopted by Dr. Maxwell 
T. Masters in the case of Philageriax, a hybrid produced by 
crossing Lapageria rosea, Ruiz and Pav., with the pollen of Phi- 
lesia buxifolia, Lam. This name was compounded from that of 
the two parents, the plant being called Philageria x Veitchii, 
Mast.t Such a course seems perfectly legitimate, and one which 
forms a precedent that may safely be followed in other similar 
cases. 
Before, however, examining these hybrids in detail, it will be 
as well to consider them in their general bearing upon classifica- 
tion. The question was propounded by Mr. Harry J. Veitch in 
his paper on * The Hybridization of Orchids "i read before the 
Orchid Conference, “ 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 Orchidese 
on an intelligible basis as regards names ? ” 
To answer these queries aright both the positive and negative 
results of hybridization must be considered. As to positive 
* Gard. Chron. 1867, p. 264, with fig. 
t Ibid. 1872, p. 358, figs. 119, 120. 
1 Ibid. 1885, i. pp. 628-632, with numerous figures; also Journ. Hort. Soc. 
vii. pp. 22-36, with five Plates, 
