242 THE ORCHID -REVIEWV. [Nov.-Dec., 1917. 
It is curious to reflect that the cross might be attempted in two other 
ways, namely, by uniting Brassolelia Jessopii with Cattleya Empress- 
Frederick, or Brassocattleya Leemanie with Leliocattleya Norba, at all 
events if the hybrids could be found in which C. Mossiz is replaced by its 
albino variety, Wageneri, for the presence of purple derived from typical C. 
Mossiz might affect the result. We do not remember a case quite 
comparable, for in that of the beautiful Brassocatlelia The Baroness, also 
descended from Leliocattleya Ophir, Cattleya Dowiana was twice repre- 
sented, and there were some crimson markings on the lip. But there was a 
similar yellow ground colour, which says much for the influence of Lelia 
xanthina as an agent in the production of yellow hybrids. 
A word may be added about the name. It is unlikely that other 
seedlings from the same parentage will prove identical, in which case the 
question of varietal names will arise, as in some former cases that we have 
in mind. One was a certificated plant, and when the name was extended 
to another seedling of identical parentage, but not equal in quality, a 
protest was made, and we then found that the name was only given in a 
varietal, or florist’s sense, and was not intended to apply to all seedlings of 
identical parentage. In short, a specific name had not been given. Should 
a similar difficulty arise in the present case it could be met by calling the 
plant Brassocatlelia Ophir var. Lady Manningham Buller, and this, we 
suggest, should be done. It is the specific name that is common to all 
seedlings of identical parentage, and this should always be in a form that 
permits of the addition of any necessary varietal names smoothly and 
euphoniously ; the varietal name cannot be thus appropriated. 
Some interesting remarks relating to Mendelism appears in the intro- 
duction to a recent paper in the Journal of Genetics, by Mr. R. N. Nabours. 
“Most, if not all Mendelians,” he remarks, ‘‘ consider the proof of the 
segregation of the germ plasm as an insulated substance in embryonic 
development adequate. It is considered a fundamental principle that the 
units contributed by two parents separate in the germ cells of the offspring 
without having had any influence on each other. . . . There is much 
confusion regarding the use of the terms dominant and recessive, the 
interpretation and application of ratios, and the definition, or determina- 
tion, of characters. The terms dominant and recessive remain part of the 
nomenclature, as if they were realities, whereas they can have doubtful 
application only in crosses between characters allelomorphic to each other 
in which one character is more apparent (epistatic) and the other less 
apparent (hypostatic); or, in the case of characters which are allelo- 
morphic only to their absences, a character being considered dominant 
