REVIEW AND INFERENCES. 27 



names but once, where we will have to deal with them a 

 hundred times. They owe us the consideration of con- 

 venience, and if they deny us such blessing, let us re- 

 volt and rule ourselves. I, therefore, propose the follow- 

 ing, besides Mr. Ridley's Catlselia for (Cattleya x Lselia). 

 Have Cattleya and Laelia been crossed with Epidendrum, 

 Epileya and Epilselia resp.; with Sophronites, Sophro- 

 leya and Sophrolselia resp.; with Brassavola, Brassaleya 

 and Brassalselia resp.; with Sobralia, Sobraleya and 

 Sobralselia resp. The cross of Phaius and Calanthe 

 name Phalanthe; of Zygopetalum and Colax, Zygolax; 

 of Cypripedium and Selenipedium, Cysepedium, etc. 



The assault upon nomenclature by the French savant 

 who committed the horrible Miltoniopsis (do not let us 

 mention his name) shows at once how little understand- 

 ing and discernment that man possessed for the object 

 in question. 



Looking at the legion of names applied to such com- 

 mon hybrids as nitens, Measuresianum, Harrisianum, 

 cenanthum, Ashburtonise, and what else their lot 

 amounts to, I do not feel like blaming those who chris- 

 tened their children. Every crow is entitled to the 

 belief that her squabs display the deepest black of any. 

 But as soon as they try to burden us with the products 

 of their fertility, we object to their rabble. Those 

 hybrids were in reach of possibility of all those who 

 did not possess any other plants to parent with. And 

 poorly as the raisers of those hybrids were placed, the 

 next degree of richness in collections were but some- 

 what better. They all had an excuse so far for dubbing 

 their flock, but from this date they should be refused 

 recognition. Simplify the nomenclature, and a great 

 step of advance will have been made. 



