May, 1915-] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 131 
jugation.”” But conjugation is not limited to hybrids. It applies to every 
sexually-formed individual, whether hybrid or not. Hybrids merely 
represent unions between individuals that have become specifically different. 
It is an extension of a process which ceases as soon as the germ cells of the 
parents become so different that conjugation cannot take place, and we say 
that such species will not cross. We do not see any necessity for wrapping 
up a perfectly familiar process in terms of mystery. Incidently it may be 
added that we get a new definition of sterile hybrids, as ‘‘ hybrid conjugates 
that do not produce perjugates,” which is going a long way round to say 
the same thing. 
A final remark, that ‘‘ Of hybrids and of hybridisation as a whole little 
or nothing can be said that is not erroneous or misleading,” is best left 
without comment. 
One thing at least may be said about hybrids, and that is that they are 
giving a great deal of trouble as regards their nomenclature, largely because 
of the neglect of rules laid down for the guidance of raisers and others. 
One of these difficulties concerns the question of specific names. The 
Brussels Rules started out by adopting the earlier rules, that the specific 
names of hybrids shall be governed by the same rules as the names of 
species, a system that we are glad to say is being largely followed, though 
with a few glaring exceptions. But any attempt to amend such names, 
although required by the rules, leads to a great deal of friction. Some of 
these irregular names, we find, are only intended to be used in the florists’ 
sense; and under a very necessary rule—that all hybrids between the same 
two species shall be regarded as forms of one—should be regarded as 
varietal names. For example, some time ago a rather fine hybrid was 
raised, and of course named, but when we extended the use of the name to 
some later seedlings of the same parentage we received a protest that they 
were altogether inferior, and could not in any sense be regarded as the 
same. The fact is the name was originally used in an exclusive sense, and 
is properly only a variety, but the question of the specific name still remains 
unsettled. 
A recent example in Odontioda illustrates one of these difficulties, 
though we wish to emphasise the fact that it has nothing to do with the 
ase previously alluded to. The name Odontioda Red Riding Hood was 
applied to a hybrid between Odontioda Bradshawie and Odontoglossum 
Rossii, and some months later the same cross was called O. Gladys. The 
former name cannot be said to consist of a single word, and the case had 
been laid aside for consideration, and was overlooked until a second hybrid 
