especially by the Royal Horticultural Society, to estab- 
lish and to publish hybrid generic names prior to actual 
registration of hybrid epithets. We find, for example, 
the names Colmanara (Miltonia X Odontoglossum X 
Oncidium) and Miltonidium (Miltonia * Oncidium) pro- 
posed in ‘“The Gardeners’ Chronicle’ in 1986; however, 
the first hybrids, Miltonidium Aristocrat and Colmanara 
Sir Jeremiah, were not registered and published until 
1940 and 1963 respectively. 
Although Article 40 shows clearly the necessity of 
the strict observance of priority, priority has not always 
been followed. As a matter of fact, the current hybrid 
list is plagued with inconsistencies. For example, both 
Doritaenopsis (Doritis & Phalaenopsis) and Vandae- 
nopsis (/”anda * Phalaenopsis), published in 1935, have 
been accepted by the registration authorities, but Vanda- 
chostylis (Vanda & Rhynchostylis), which appears in the 
same publication, is ignored. In 1958, Vanda X Rhyn- 
chostylis was published again, but this time with a new 
hybrid generic name of Rhynchovanda. 
Finally, we must call attention to another deficiency 
and inconsistency in the current horticultural practices, 
i.e., the lack of application of the results of research in 
orchid taxonomy. Quite possibly many hybridizers are 
not aware of the amount of research and effort made by 
taxonomists to establish the correct identity of the spe- 
cies employed in their hybridizing programs. This failure 
is responsible, to some extent, for the current confusion 
in the nomenclature of hybrid orchids. Yet, we believe, 
that nomenclatorial aspects should receive at least as 
much attention as do current cultural techniques, such 
as potting media and meristem culture. 
To remedy these deficiencies, we have searched the 
world’s botanical and horticultural literature for known 
hybrid generic names of orchids, together with the origi- 
[145 ] 
