56 NICHOLSON’S DICTIONARY OF GARDENING, 
first time in any gardening work; they cross-fertilize with Mil- 
tonias, but refuse to mix with Odontoglossum, although Mr. Bentham 
states the opposite in Gen. Plant. 0. Warscewiczii was awkward— 
there was already a Miltonia Warecaaices, so I had to coin a name 
and I used the specific name Endresit, in honour of the ‘ndividual 
who sg brought the plant alive to Baas 
the names in the Dictionary San printed in accordance 
she sciantifio practice, there would be little to complain of. But, 
o doubt from a quite intelligible consideration for the gardening 
uid, no authority is appended to any of the names, so that 
change of naine is distinctly mentioned), it is: peels to tell 
whether a name ote r has not been previously published. Thus 
we have ‘ Miltonia Roeeli (then follows description)... ... - .M. 
6065; B. O.* 30 (under name of a Roezlit.” This 
would lead us to suppose that the plant was figured as O. Roealit in 
Bot. Mag., but it is there styled CDN Gisee: and accordin gto 
Mr. Nicholson's letter) se we st yee as a Miltonia is found 
in the ‘ Illustrated Dict A. vewillaria 1 0. 6 es B. 
6037, under name of icici ine aoomeagy makes the matter 
plain so far as Bot. Mag. is concerned, but there is nothing to 
show Se ete the plant has or has not been published elsewhere 
as a Milt 
fr. Nicholson is too good a botanist and too careful a worker 
to wish to add to the troubles of synonymy; and we trust that m 
eu 
This would Sake so little space that neither eabichee nor gardener 
could opin. while the botanist would be as grateful as we fear 
he wi e the reverse. We might well spare some of the 
pkplahatiotis of the specific names; in Miltonia, for example, the 
reader who learnt at p- 867 that M. Clowesiti Lamarcheana would be 
called in English, ‘Mons. Oscar Lamarche de Rossius’ Clowes’ 
Miltonia,” would probably remember that gentleman's name when, 
two pages further on, he came to another form named in his 
honour. Whether he or anyone else aa ever use such a desig- 
nation is another matter. 
Unfortunately this is not the only difficulty. The Merge is 
dated 1886, but most of the parts of which it is composed 
issued during 1885. Thus an oe of date is Poieen 
which may lead to further sea array 
e have been thus particular in calling attention to hee 
names eae 5 as it seems a us, they cannot be ignored, 
orward at some later date, and further complicate the tangled Be 
of synonymy. It is peoaty therefore, to recognise at once as 
as s have claims to adoptio 
* B. O. = Bateman’s Monograph of Odontoglossum. 
peeps 9 1. 
ne 
