REVIEW AND INFERENCES. 17 



be left to the committee before which such crosses may 

 be put for a certificate of existence to determine whether 

 or not sufficient character has been obliterated to refer 

 the progeny to varieties already catalogued. 



The offsprings of an identical cross should not receive 

 different names unless a variety has been used which 

 gave additional and prominent features to the seedling. 



To apply different names to seedlings originating 

 from the same seed-capsule is an insult to intelligence. 

 Such cases have happened, but should be objected to in 

 the most outspoken manner. I am aware though of the 

 possibility of suppressed characters, of missing links 

 occasionally appearing, in which case their existence 

 should be put before scientists to be properly taken 

 notice of. Such plants should be bought up by botanic 

 gardens to be preserved becoming their kind. [I speak 

 of one case, Cypripedium medea monstrosa Ceres later 

 on]. What I am alluding to in general is such dubbing 

 of bastards as Cpd. Laforcadei and Barteti, the Jolibois 

 annex to nomenclature, the whole rigmarole of Reichen- 

 bach about the set of Warner's hybrids herded under 

 the rubric of Cpd. calophyllum, or Sander's salvation- 

 army-lot of daily-fresh-to-order bastards. 



If reverse crosses are displaying features entitling 

 them to recognition, accord it to them, but only as vari- 

 eties of the antecedent. 



If you meet with obscure crosses, be it that the ex- 

 hibitor was not concerned in their origin, or be it that 

 a stray seedling reaches the flowering stage, or be it that 

 the person growing the plant was not of the caring kind: 

 refuse them recognition from the very outset. Compare 

 their description with anything already recorded, and 

 if any ways admissible, order them under such lines. 

 It may happen though that the plant is remarkable for 



