APRIL, 1914.| THE ORCHID REVIEW. IOI 
| & | NOMENCLATURE OF HYBRIDS. | & | 
OME time ago we promised to deal with hybrid nomenclature from 
the historical standpoint, and the chief difficulty is that Orchid 
hybridisation is a comparatively modern development, so that we must 
travel beyond the bounds of Orchidology for a few early illustrations. 
The Laws of Botanical Nomenclature are supposed to date from the 
International Botanical Congress held at Paris in 1867, but so far as 
hybrids are concerned they scarcely did more than confirm rules drawn up 
thirty years earlier by one of the pioneers of plant hybridisation, Dean 
Herbert, who was also a systematist of no mean capacity. In studying the 
Amaryllidee Herbert found that in certain genera the hybrids outnumbered 
the species, largely owing to the practise of giving a separate name to every 
seedling that possessed distinguishing characters, without regard to its 
origin, a custom which he described as very objectionable, and one that the 
writers of all botanical works should set their faces sternly against. In the 
case of Hippeastrum he showed that out of a total of 105 names enumerated 
by Sweet no fewer than eighty were hybrids, and many of these of similar 
origin. He then drew up a list, showing thirty-one distinct combinations 
(one of which had not yet flowered), and of these seventeen only were 
primary hybrids. 
Herbert’s Rules of Nomenclature were drawn up in rather discursive 
form, but may be summarised as follows :— 
(x) All hybrids between forms of the same two species (including reverse 
crosses) were considered as forms of the same hybrid. 
(2) An alternative set of names was admitted, (a) a single name, limited 
to the genitive of a personal name or the place where a hybrid was raised, 
and (b) a ‘‘ descriptive double name,” including the names of the parents, 
that of the male parent being placed first, with the proviso, however, that 
all reverse crosses should be included under the original name. (Example 
Hippeastrum Johnsonii or H. regio-vittatum). 
(3) Any distinct varieties were to be distinguished by the addition of 
varietal “ florists’ names, such as Juno, Ceres, Catillus, Napoleon, Alompra, 
Sigismunda, &c.,” these, however, ‘deserving no place in a_ botanical 
arrangement, belonging froperly to the catalogues of cultivators.” 
Adjectival names for hybrids were rejected by Herbert, these being 
expressly reserved for the natural species, but in other respects his system 
was in agreement with the modern one of giving a formula and a specific 
name, with additional varietal names as necessary, for what he called the 
‘descriptive double name” simply indicated the two parents, whether 
‘species or hybrids—and in four cases both parents were themselves hybrids. 
