50 JOURNAL OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETl^ [vol. i 



nown 



generic names according to article xiv. 



nomenclature 



coining of new names for intergeneric hybrids. Art. 32 rules that the ia- 

 tergeneric hybrid is associated with the one of the two genera which precedes 

 the olhcr in al])hidjetical order. Against this rvding the following objections 

 can be raised: 1° that such names give by their form, if used without their 

 formula, not the sUghtest hint that the hybrid is an intergeneric hybrid, as 

 it may as well be taken for a hybrid between two species of the same genus 

 — 2'' that it seems logical that a hybrid between two genera receives a dis- 

 tinct generic name, as long as a hybrid between two species of the same 

 genus receives a distinct s])ecific name — S"" that the insertion of an inter- 

 generic hybrid under one of the parent genera would necessitate a change 

 in the characters of the genus under which it is placed — 4° that the giving 

 of new generic names to intergeneric hybrids is according to general usage, 

 as almost every one of these hybrids has recinved a generic name. 



A modification concerning specific names of hy])rids is contained in art. 

 VIII. which reads: ''The specific name of a hybrid may be expressed in 

 Latin or in any language that is ^^Titlen in Roman characters." Jhis 

 partly ccmtradicts art. 31. of the Rules of botanical nomenclature which 

 reads: " Hybrids between species of the same genus or presumably so, are 

 designated by a formula and, whenever it seems useful or necessary', by a 

 name. . . . The name which is subject to the same rules as names of species, 

 is distinguished • - . by the sign X before the name." As names in the 

 vulgar tongue are not allowed for names of species, it follows that they 

 should not be used for the specific names of hybrids. In the French pre- 

 liminary report this question is discussed at length on pp. 380-392 where it is 

 stated that opinions were almost equally divided between those who favored 

 the admission of vernacular names and those who did not, but the o])inion 

 of those favoring admission prevailed. As an example X Cattleya Princcsse 

 Clementine is cited, which should not have been translated into X C. Clem- 

 entinae, as done bv Hurst & Rolfe, but retained in its original form. Accord- 

 ing to my opinion, however, both names can be used, if the distinction I 

 have made above between botanical and horticultural names of varieties 

 is a])p]ied also to hybrids. In this case the vernacular form X Cattleya 

 Prineesse Clementine would stand, following horticultural usage, only for 

 the original cross, while X C. Clementinae, accorcUng to botanical usage, 

 would include, distinguished as varieties if necessary, all later crosses be- 

 tween the same parent species. 



However much we may be convinced that by takuig into consideration 

 the Latin names of forms of cultivated j^lants, we shall incur many incon- 

 veniences, we cannot avoid it. As sho\\7i above, there is no difference 

 tween a botanical and a horticultural form, and as long as a horticultural 

 form has received a name indistinguishable from a botanical name, it must 

 be treated according to the rules of botanical nomenclature. Neither is it 

 Dossible to exclude names published in warden catalogues, nursery price- 



be 



