322 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [NovEMBER, 1914. 
some hard knocks, and it may be interesting to recall what was said about 
us nearly a quarter of a century ago. : 
‘“‘The greatest sinners against propriety in naming plants,’’ Mr. Hibberd 
remarks, ‘‘are the Orchidists, for they ignore all settled rules, they 
repudiate the requirements of common sense, they make a law for them- 
selves which they do not define, and which, whenever they do define it, 
will convict them of frequent and flagrant violation. We must wait for the 
report of the Committee that has taken the subject in hand, and has been 
toiling almost time out of mind, and meanwhile pray that they will not vex 
the shade of Linnzus to the extent of compelling him to get out of his 
grave to terrify the evildoers, but if they follow the example of Reichenbach 
it will be impossible to predict to what it may lead them. The great 
Orchidist was a notorious splitter and species maker, but his followers in 
this country accepted all his decisions without question, and never wavered 
in faith until the man was dead; then, finding that he had resolved we 
should not have his collection, his worshippers made the sad discovery that 
he was but a wooden god after all, but being dead and buried they were 
denied the gratification of knocking him to pieces.” 
As to names in general, Mr. Shirley Hibberd remarked: ‘‘ Whoever 
will explore this field of labour will assuredly discover that good names are 
better than bad names, and that names alone, as such, have a literary and 
scientific value proportionate in their correspondence with the requirements 
of common sense. A man who coins a name contributes to the language of 
the world, and the world has some right to a voice in the matter. And you 
will ask me what I mean by common sense in this connection. In a 
general way I will answer, compliance with the Linnean method, but I 
must, in the interest of common sense, propose to you that we may with 
advantage build upon the Linnean foundation, so as to carry the edifice 4 
few storeys higher. And our building must be after a design that needs no 
explaining, with materials of the simplest character. For example, 
Linnaeus admitted commemorative names, and they might even now be 
allowed were common sense in the ascendant; but it is not, and com- 
memorative names have of late years been employed with such a lack * 
discrimination that the abuse suggests a necessity for their total abolition.’ 
He then cites a remark that ‘‘commemorative names at least give us 4 
scrap of information in botanical history,” and adds, ‘A scrap it is, for 
which we pay an exorbitant price, the commemorative system having been 
assiduously developed into an intolerable nuisance.” 
But geographical names do not escape criticism, for it is remarked that 
