98 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
had to leave unanswered were, How many named varieties have we at the pre- 
sent time? And how many of themare really distinct ?_ Perhaps some of my 
correspondents may care to answer the latter. It would certainly be interest- 
ing, in view of the fact that at almost every horticultural meeting now-a-days 
new names appear. One cannot help wondering how some of them would 
compare with their predecessors, could we only range them side by side. 
And how many of them will as rapidly fall into oblivion! A chrono- 
logical list of named varieties of O. crispum would be instructive. 
The other day I dropped across an article entitled ‘“‘ Hybridées du 
Cypripedium Sandere,”” by H. Dauthenay (Rev. Hort., 1900, p. 152). It 
commenced with an introductory note on Cypripedium insigne Sandere, 
which, it says, has contributed to the parentage of five hybrids. It then 
proceeds to enumerate them, as follows :—1, C. x Sanderiano-superbiens 
(from superbiens and Sandere); 2, C. x Princess May (callosum and 
Sander); 3, C. X Harri-Sanderi (Harrisianum and Sandere); 4, C. X 
Mistress Reginald Young (Lowii and Sanderz); and 5, C. X Sanderiano- 
Curtisii (Sander and Curtisii). It is professedly taken from an article by 
Mr. H. J. Chapman, in The Garden, and on looking this up I find that it is 
neither C. Sandere nor C. insigne Sander, but C. Sanderianum that formed 
the subject of the original article. Is it any wonder that we have confusion 
in our records ? 
The other day, I was looking through the List of New Garden Plants _ 
for the years 1876 to 1896, recently issued from Kew, and found a note in 3 
the preface which has some practical bearing on the use of the vernacular 
in nomenclature, to which I have alluded on several occasions: 
“Hybrids . . . have been included,” it runs, ‘where they have been 
described with formal botanical names . . . Only names are cited which 
agree in form, at any rate, with the usual binomial nomenclature.” 
Accordingly, we find that many important primary hybrids have been 
omitted because they have only received popular names, a point which it 
will be well to bear in mind in using the list. It serves to emphasize my 
remarks at page 35, for if the plants omitted had been named in accordance ~ 
with the R. H. S. Rules of Nomenclature they evidently would have been 
included in the list. Advocates of the use of the vernacular please note. 
At page 79, it is recorded that an extra fine specimen of the beautiful 2 
albino Dendrobium nobile virginale received a First-class Certificate from 
the Manchester Orchid Society on February 1st. Now I seeit is described 
under the name of D. nobile virginale Leemann’s variety (Gard. Chron. 
1900, xxvil. p. 162), and I wonder what necessity there was for the addition. 
