Novemper, 1914.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 323 
they are, as a rule, not good. Many plants found in Japan and named 
japonica, are also found in China, and species that inhabit both the old and 
new world cannot with any propriety have geographical names assigned to 
them. He had found in a volume of the Botanical Magazine figures of 
sixty-six plants, of which no fewer than twenty-eight derive their specific 
names from places or persons. And he adds, “If books of authority like 
the Botanical Magazine are thus open to animadversion, what shall we say 
of trade catalogues? What shall we say? I quit the unwelcome theme, 
and leave the trader in plants at his own free will to commorate his 
relations, friends and customers ex officio, for the simple reason that we are 
not bound to trade names, but we are bound to . . . names that come 
to us with the stamp of authority.” Double names were equally taboo, and 
examples were given with comments on what further crossing would lead 
to. In fact, it was remarked, “ the raising of hybrid Orchids has brought 
about a curious crisis in hybrid nomenclature, and the binomial system may 
be said to be nowhere in face of the new army of facts.” 
Mr. Shirley Hibberd expressed a decided preference for descriptive 
names, and he submitted that ‘“ while the binomial ‘system suffices for all 
ordinary purposes it should be maintained in its original integrity,’ the use 
of Supplementary names being only allowable as representing varieties, and 
these ‘may be framed on a variety of plans with almost unlimited latitude, 
Consistent with propriety and convenience,” and such liberty must be 
allowed in naming varieties, and especially garden plants. For florists’ 
flowers descriptive names were seldom necessary, but in the case of 
Varieties having somewhat of the solidity and permanence of species they 
were immense aids to identification. And here the lecturer related a 
Personal experience which may conclude our summary. In full persuasion 
of the utility of such a system, he bestowed much care in the classification 
of the Ivies, and published a monograph, in which he adopted or invented 
descriptive names for all the varieties he could obtain, abolishing the 
Petsonal names without hesitation. And he adds: ‘‘ The world did not 
aeeept my proposals with joyful thanks, for in truth I was pretty freely 
abused in the papers for altering the names. But I allowed it to pass 
Without complaint, and now there is a growing tendence to admit that 
sommon sense may by gracious permission have something to do with the 3 
haming of garden plants.” 
ve Story was written nearly a quarter of a century ago, and a note is 
pended: + Report of Orchid Nomenclature Committee was issued 
“multaneously with the reading of the paper.” But Shirley Hibberd did 
yp : 
Ot live to write the sequel. 
