FEBRUARY, 1915,] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 35 
Committee. Resolutions were carried that the Congress be not held in 
1915, and that the present Executive Committee continue to act as long as 
necessary. The Committee were strongly of opinion that the Congress in 
London should not be abandoned, and the suggestion was made that it 
might take place at the next quinquennium, in 1920. But it was agreed 
that nothing definite could be settled at the present time, and the following 
resolution was passed: ‘‘ That the Executive Committee be authorised to 
convoke a meeting of the General Committee at some future date to 
consider the date of the Congress. It was also decided that in the mean- 
time the General Committee be called together once a year. We 
particularly regret this unavoidable delay, because one of the subjects 
proposed for discussion was a discrepancy between the Vienna and Brussels 
Rules of Nomenclature, especially with regard to the specific names of 
hybrids. A copy of the proposition that has been submitted to meet the 
case was published at pp. 133-135 of our last volume. In the meantime we 
suggest that the proposals made should be adopted. 
The way in which the war seems destined to leave a permanent mark 
upon Orchidology is in the matter of nomenclature, for we have now a 
crop of hybrids that have been named after persons or places that have 
become famous during the war, and often applied without reference to the 
requirements of the rules of nomenclature. ‘Personal names of two or 
three words should be reserved for varieties. As specific names they are 
totally unsuitable, and their incongruity is at once seen when varietal 
names require to be added. Place names are seldom open to this objection. 
Cypripedium Ypres has recently appeared, and although the name may 
appear something of a novelty it accords with the principles of binomial 
nomenclature, inasmuch as the specific name consists of a single word. We 
mention this again because we are anxious to secure an orderly system of 
nomenclature, and there has been a considerable improvement of late, 
though some raisers do not yet appreciate the necessities of the case. 
The following, which looks like a peep into the future, has reached us 
for publication :— 
NoMENCLATURE.—At the last sitting of the Westminster Nomenclature 
Court, Mr. was charged with attempting to impose a name that 
was not in conformity with law, and, further, with obstructing the 
Nomenclature Officer in the proper execution of his duty. Defendant, in 
answer to the charge, said he had no intention of making a disturbance, 
but he found complainant in the act of altering the name on his card, and 
he naturally objected. He thought everyone had the right to name his 
own plants just as he liked. The Chairman said that was a mistake, and 
