| oF He : 27) 
. Che Orchid Review G 
2 VoL. XXVII. Nov.-DEc., 1919. No. 323-324. 3 
C 
C- =) 
ELLOWS of the Royal Horticultural Society experienced a pleasant 
7 surprise when the announcement was made that its own Hall, at 
Vincent Square, would again be available for the meeting on October 2tst, 
and it was accepted as an augury of the early return of more normal 
conditions. The show on this occasion was devoted to British-grown fruit 
(postponed from October 7th on account of the Railway Strike), and 
consequently Orchid groups were excluded, but a number of special plants 
were submitted for adjudication by the Orchid Committee, who sat in the 
old annexe. Next season should see an increase in the number of exhibits, 
and before long it may be possible to hold another special Autumn Show of 
Orchids, for the one held before the war was a great sucess. It will, how- 
ever, takea long time for our collections to regain their old condition after 
the experience of the last five years, though we believe that potting materials 
are again available. 
OUR NOTE BOOK. 9 
A correspondent sends us some extracts on the species question, taken, 
from a recent article. The writer complains that “the tendency now-a- 
days is to multiply species, quite small differences being considered sufficient 
to justify specific rank,” and that it is “a source of worry to the gardener, 
who fails to seein such differences any tangible reason for distinctive names.” 
He further remarks that Darwin looked at species as only strongly- 
marked and well-defined varieties, and with regard to geographical forms he 
said, “‘ there is no possible test but individual opinion to determine which of 
them should be considered species, and which as varieties.” The inference 
might have been that such plants should not be called species, especially as 
“nice botanical distinction is irksome,” but it was not so. ‘“‘It does not 
much matter to the gardener, whether a plant is recognised as a species or a 
variety of one. For his purpose he requires distinguishing names, the 
simpler the better, and shows his objection to double-barrelled names by 
declining to use them.” ‘‘ Does he really?” : asks our correspondent. 
“How about Cattleya Mossie Reineckeana, and Cypripedium insigne 
Sandere ?” And, we may add, Cypripedium Lawrenceanum Hyeanum? 
165 
