~ 
fHeE ORCHID. REVIEW. 
Vor. VIII.} JULY, 1900. [No. gt. 
DIES spcrivigaed ea ae 
My remarks at page 97, on the Nomenclature of Warietions, have called forth 
two interesting contributions to the question, on which I must add a few 
words, though I am not very hopeful of being able to suggest any practical 
_ remedy for the growing confusion. The necessity for a ‘system of registra- 
tion seems.to be admitted, but who will undertake it? Such a work would 
entail a considerable amount of time, trouble, and expense, to say nothing 
of the impossibility of obtaining examples of many pre-existing varieties, 
whose names, in some cases, are all that remain to us. And since my 
remarks appeared, many new varieties of Odontoglossum crispum alone 
have been recorded—in fact, the list is growing with prodigious strides, and 
one is tempted to ask how many distinct varieties are there of Odonto- 
glossum crispum? Mr. Crawshay (page 139), seems to think that the 
number of ‘‘almost identical doubles” is ‘few,’ which is almost an 
admission that they are being named as individuals rather than as varieties. 
Registration on this principle would be rather a big affair. 
“*X” (page 139), approaches the question from a somewhat different 
and, to my mind, more hopeful standpoint. It seems to me that if all the 
multitudinous named forms of Odontoglossum crispum could be brought 
together, side by side, it would be found possible to range them under a 
smaller number of varieties, or types of variation, but how numerous these 
- would be it is difficult to estimate. An arrangement of this kind would be 
both possible and useful, and could be undertaken quite apart from the 
question of nomenclature. Indeed, it would be much easier without it, if 
questions of priority have to be considered, though, of course, that point 
would have to be considered eventually. First ascertain your varieties, and 
then name them, 
