principles: ‘‘that (1) ‘generic names’ of hybrid genera 
should be regarded as condensed formulae and should 
be validly published by an accompanying statement of 
their parentage, without any Latin diagnosis or other 
description, and (2) that as a consequence, such ‘generic 
names’ should be applicable only to the plants which are 
accepted taxonomically as derived from the parent genera 
named.’”’ (From the Report of the Committee for Hy- 
brids, p. 2.) 
To clarify the meaning and because of the application 
of these new principles to hybrid generic names of 
orchids, we are quoting here the full text of Article 40, 
as presented to the Committee, voted on and accepted 
by the Nomenclatorial Section on July 80, 1964. Exam- 
ples are omitted. 
‘*Article 40.— For purposes of valid publication, the 
name of ahybrid group of generic, subgeneric or sectional 
rank, which is a condensed formula or equivalent to a 
condensed formula (see H.3 and H.4), must be published 
with astatement of the names of the parent genera, sub- 
genera, or sections respectively, but a Latin diagnosis or 
other description is not necessary... . 
‘*For purposes of valid publication, names of hybrids 
of specific or lower rank with Latin epithets are subject 
to the same rules as are those of non-hybrid taxa of the 
same rank... . 
‘*For purposes of priority, names and epithets in Latin 
form given to hybrids are subject to the same rules as 
are those of non-hybrid taxa of corresponding rank... .”’ 
Notwithstanding the rather unorthodox wording of 
this article (it represents a new biological phenomenon 
in proposing hybridization solely among names) it vali- 
dates the several hundreds of orchid hybrid generic names 
which up to the present time, have had no legal status 
under the Codes due to a lack of any kind of description. 
This is a relief, since it has occasionally been the practice, 
[ 144 | 
