— 
Deceuscr, 1915] THE ORCHID. REVIEW. 355 
of things that was becoming intolerable. They have been the subject ot 
careful consideration, and the view is expressed that in their modified form 
they are adequate to meet the case, and should be loyally followed, for 
their neglect will only pile up another mass of confusion that will be 
increasingly difficult to remedy as time goes on. 
Some of the discrepancies, it is remarked, are difficult to understand, 
and one of them is the want of uniformity in writing the names of generic 
hybrids, for example Leeliocattleya and Lelio-Cattleya. Some writers 
persistently use the latter form for all such names, yet it is not in accordance 
with the rules. Brassocatlelia and Brasso-Lzlio-Cattleya form a much 
worse example, as may be seen from a remark on page 349, and a similar 
remark applies to Sophrocatlelia and Sophro-Lelio-Cattleya, for these two 
cases are expressly provided for in the rules. The R.H.S. Journal, we note 
with satisfaction, has of late dropped the use of the hyphen, and we hope 
soon to see the rule adopted in its entirety. There are cases where the use’ 
of the hyphen seems necessary, but it does not apply to the names of 
generic hybrids compounded from the names, or parts of the names, of the 
two parent genera. The correction should be easy to make, because 
Messrs. Charlesworth have always adopted the correct form of the names 
in their Catalogues, and they are so given by Curtis in Orchids for Every- 
one. And at the last R.H.S. meeting a label was attached to a plant of 
Sophrocatlelia Niobe stating that it had already received an Award 
of Merit, which is quite correct, though the name does not appear in 
form in the List of R.H.S. Awards. 
that 
glia Lawrencei, 
d Leliocattleya 
seems to have 
It is rather curious that the specific name of Brassocatl 
for the natural hybrid between Brassocattleya Lindleyana an 
elegans, should have been taken exception to. The idea 
arisen out of an old Paris rule of indicating a hybrid under the joint names 
of the parent species, but this is not possible when the parents are them- 
selves hybrids, as in the present case; at all events, a string of four specific 
names would be required, and this system of nomenclature has long ago 
broken down. 
——— 
me time ago we summarised the 
al standpoint (O.R., xxl. PP- 
d set of rules for the London 
It may be interesting to recall that so 
Nomenclature of hybrids from the historic 
10I-104), and afterwards drew up a revise 
Botanical Congress (l.c., pp. 133-135): - The Congress had to be ae 7 
until after the war, but in the meantime the rules themselves, which com ine 
the Vienna and Brussels Rules, forma sound working basis, and 3 ea 
iterests of an orderly system of nomenclature we appeal for their adoption. 
