130 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [May, 1914. 
might have been written to-day, though, of course, he could not forsee the 
that no anxiety need be felt in this respect. The extent of the collection 
may be inferred from the following note which appeared at the time 
{Garden, 1890, i. p. 16) :— 4 
REMOVAL OF PROFESSOR REICHENBACH’S COLLECTIONS.—We learn 
from the German horticultural journals that the collections of this 
celebrated Orchidist have just left the Botanic Gardens of Hamburg to be 
placed in the Imperial Museum of Vienna. No less than three days were 
occupied in bringing his collections to the railway station, and they filled 
four large waggons. These collections were in 59 cases, of which 28 
contained the dried specimens and 33 the library; 134 large boxes were 
filled with various materials, and 1,149 packets of printed notes and 
manuscripts accompanied the specimens of dried Orchids. 
In an official report which appeared at the time we find the number of 
sheets is estimated at 420,000, though it is not stated how many of them 
are Orchids. 
The opening of the Herbarium will be watched with the greatest 
curiosity, as it will afford a key to the solution of a large number of 
interesting questions, some of which were indicated in articles which 
appeared in our last volume (pp. 273-278, 299-301). An answer to some of 
them may soon be forthcoming. 
The’ question of hybrid Nomenclature is again to the fore, partly 
because of the necessity'of an agreed scheme in connection with the 
R.H.S. Registration of Hybrid Orchids, and partly in connection with the 
International Botanical Congress to be held in London next year, and 
the fact that notices of subjects requiring discussion have to be submitted 
so long beforehand. Both are, of course, primarily due to the steady 
accessions of new hybrids that appear meeting by meeting, and have to be 
dealt with under a set of rules that are inadequate to the purpose and not 
altogether in agreement, as pointed out in a succeeding article (pp- 135 
135) to which attention is particularly called. It is desirable that the 
question should not remain in its present unsatisfactory condition any 
longer than necessary, and to this end we invite suggestions on the subject. 
It is interesting to find (see pp. ro1-104) that the Rules of Hybrid 
Nomenclature were formulated so long ago and by such a distinguished 
hybridist as Dean Herbert, and perhaps the point would have been more 
generally appreciated if they had not been tucked away in an article on the 
genus Hippeastrum in a Monograph of the Amaryllidaceae. Herbert had 
certainly very enlightened views on the subject, and some of his expressions — 
