60 ORCHID HYBRIDS. 



References and Abbreviations Made Use of. 



I mention specially that of all citations, I have given 

 the greatest importance to the date on which the hybrid 

 in question was shown for the first time, be this with 

 the description or with only the simple record of its 

 parentage. I have not attempted to give a record of all 

 those places where a description was published, and add 

 besides and after the date of publication (be it in show or 

 journal) those places only where figures of the plant appear. 



While descriptions of hybrids are essential to science, 

 the different plants raised from the seed of one pod show 

 so great a variation, that to us their record of parentage 

 is the only determining fact in the ranking of hybrids. 

 My citations vary in so far from the rules of botanists, 

 that I have substituted the date in place of volume 

 and page, except those references which I had to copy 

 from citations. I know this will lead to criticism and 

 objection. But there surely is nothing wrong about my 

 way. And is not for us gardeners the date more plaus- 

 ible than volume and number? Priority has to be 

 recognized most vigorously, and its right applied strictly 

 throughout, if for once we shall establish a base to work 

 upon for the future, and at the same time do justice to 

 past results and efforts. 



Another point. As far back as 1864 (see Gard. Chron. 

 July 16th), we find our attention drawn to the coming 

 revolution in orchid nomenclature. It was Reichen- 

 bach who gave us a sample of his tumultuous, autocratic 

 spirit, and while he yet was below the horizon of recog- 

 nition, people did not mind criticising his doings and 

 urgings. Lindley's death made him the laureate, meta- 

 morphosing into a bullfrog soon after. Coward he 

 proved himself a dozen times, if once, when refusing 

 to apply his twists and crooks in nomenclature to his 



