Ocrozer, 1915.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 201 
the contrivances and beautiful adaptations slowly acquired through each 
part occasionally varying in a slight degree but in many ways, with the 
- preservation of those variations which were beneficial to the organism 
under complex and every-varying conditions of life, transcend in an 
incomparable manner the contrivances and adaptations which the most 
fertile imagination of man could invent” (p. 285). 
And concerning natural selection itself we read: ‘‘ In my examination 
of Orchids, hardly any fact has struck me so much as the endless 
diversities of structure—the prodigality, of resources—for gaining the very 
same end, namely, the fertilisation of.one flower by pollen from another 
plant. This fact is to a large extent intelligible on the principle of natural 
selection. As all the parts of a flower are co-ordinated, if slight variations 
in any one part were preserved, from being beneficial to the plant, then the 
other parts would generally have to be modified in some corresponding 
manner. But these latter parts might not vary at all, or they might not 
vary in a fitting manner, and these other variations, whatever their nature 
might be, which tended to bring all the parts into more harmonious action 
with one another, would be preserved by natural selection (p. 284). 
‘Thrice happy the Orchid that has its name well chosen!” The 
phrase will serve to round off another of the inevitable little discussions on 
nomenclature that prevent us from stagnating. The Law of Priority is the 
subject on this occasion, and the objection urged against it is that it 
secures the perpetuity of every absurd and erroneous name that may be 
imposed upon the most inoffensive of Orchids. Were the law insisted 
upon in all cases, regardless of consequences—and some would go as far 
as this—we should be inclined to agree, but a loophole of escape is 
provided in the rules, inasmuch as it is permissible to correct undoubted 
mistakes. The question is how far should this proviso extend? We shall 
not soon forget a reply that we once received when we informed a 
correspondent that a Stanhopea sent for determination was S. inodora, 
Lindl. We knew that the flowers were fragrant, and the mistake was 
Lindley’s in imposing such an erroneous name. The question arises 
whether correction is not permissible in such a case. There is a precedent, 
for Lindley also named a Bifrenaria inodora, which, unfortunately, has 
very fragrant flowers, and Barbosa Rodrigues deliberately re-named it 
B. fragrans. Reichenbach, too, when he was informed that a Habenaria 
which he had called H. pusilla—it was described from dried specimens— 
had a lip as brilliant as a soldier’s jacket, promptly re-named it H. 
militaris, and no law of priority should be allowed to rescue so 
inappropriate a name as H. pusilla from oblivion. 
