One of the major shortcomings of all of these publica- 
tions, with the exception of ‘‘The Orchid Stud-Book”’, 
is that they are merely compilations of names without 
any reference to the places of publication. Moreover, 
since the inception of hybrid registration, the registra- 
tion authorities have neglected to catalog the hybrids 
published in various botanical and horticultural journals. 
These deficiencies precipitated the publication of syno- 
nyms and homonyms. 
In addition to these problems, the nomenclature of 
orchid hvbrids has been, and to a great extent, still is 
confused by practices that run contrary to the rules and 
regulations of both the International Code of Botanical 
Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomencla- 
ture of Cultivated Plants. This statement does not mean 
that orchidists and orchidologists willfully engage in 
practices that are contrary to the Codes, but rather that 
neither of the Codes has taken into consideration the 
practices established in the past hundred years of orchid 
hybridization. Recently, however, significant steps have 
been taken to accomodate the nomenclatorial problems 
of orchid hybrids within the framework of the existing 
Codes. 
The 1961 edition of the Horticultural Code makes 
allowances for the special application of collective names 
of orchids of hybrid origin, since the registration of orchid 
hybrids takes place at the grew level and not at the cul- 
tivar level, asin other plant families. The current Hor- 
ticultural Code, however, has no provisions for grex 
registration. More significant is the decision reached at 
the Tenth International Botanical Congress in Edin- 
burgh in 1964. The Committee for Hybrids of the 
Nomenclatorial Section completely redrafted the word- 
ing of Articles 40, H.8 and H.4 of the Botanical Code. 
These reworded articles embody the following new 
[ 143 ] 
