T30 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
botanist by the way in which the hybridist was continually upsetting his 
classification, that Mr. R. A. Rolfe’s paper upon the subject was eagerly 
looked for, and people settled themselves comfortably in their seats as that 
gentleman mounted the platform. Mr. Rolfe did not, however, read his” 
paper in extenso, but contented himself by giving a brief digest of the line he 
had taken. Surprise was expressed in some quarters when the lecturer 
proceed to make out a strong case for the hybridist. If hybrids did not : 
exist in Nature, said he, then the systematist would have been justified 
in complaining of the way in which generic distinctions had been broken Ups 
Natural hybrids undoubtedly did exist, and they were in fact. common,” 11 
certain groups, and “ some of them had been described by botanists as new 
species,” though their hybrid origin was proved by the fact that they had 
been reconstructed by artificial crossing. Mr. Hurst had told them that 
instead of hybridists confusing the labours of botanists, the latter would have 
to go to the hybridist to clear up many of his difficulties, and speaking as ie 
systematist he believed Mr. Hurst was right. 
These sentiments are somewhat novel from the standpoint of : 
systematic botany, but the lecturer at all events gave plenty of facts aq 
support of his opinions. Perhaps the writer of the above paragraph expected 2 
him to defend the views of the old school of botanists who regarded ‘ 
hybridists and their work with suspicion, to say the very least, but at such ba — 
meeting this would have been literally to beard the lion in his den, and pa ; 
satisfactory to find that the old prejudice was largely based on misconception 
_ To return, however to the Conference Report :— 
Mr. Burbidge, in a general discussion, raises the vexed question of he 
nomenclature of hybrids (p. 205), and seems to think that the use of Latins 
names is responsible for the utter confusion which exists. But let him 
speak for himself :—‘‘ When we held the Narcissus Committee-—in 1884, 1 4 
think it was—there was a resolution passed that the plants should not — 
receive Latin names. We all know that the adoption of Latin, names has 
been a source of extreme trouble from the very commencement of plants 
being hybridised. In olden days they raised Calceolarias, Pelargoniums, | 
Fuchsias, &c., and they all got Latin names. The consequence is that | 
to-day you find these names in botanical books, and the parentage 1s kept : 
_ back, and the consequence is that utter confusion exists. We really do not” 
know a tenth part of what we ought to know about the hybridisations of 
the past, owing to the Latin names being used in the same way for hybrids” 
as for real species. Dr. Masters some years ago struck a very good note” 
when he named a hybrid, raised by Mr. Veitch, Philageria—a compound of 
the names of the two genera that were united in the cross, The same plan” 
