164 THE ORCHID REVIEW [JUNE, 1915. 
it was one of the most profitable plants that ever passed through his hands. 
More seedlings soon flowered and, incredible as it may appear, this 
particular hybrid received no fewer than four more First-class Certificates 
in London and Manchester within the next thirteen months. Is it not all 
written in the chronicles of the Orchid Review ! 
We have long recognised that hybrids of unrecorded parentage are 
likely to give trouble as regards their nomenclature, and one such case 
in our article on the genus Odontioda has brought us three separate 
communications. O. Goodsoniz is there given as one parent of three 
separate hybrids, although O. Cooksoniz was originally recorded. It is 
pointed out that O. Goodsoniz was a plant of unknown origin until the 
appearance of O. Cooksonie, with a full record of parentage, when 
comparison showed that the two had a similar origin. This we fully 
recognise, but O. Goodsoniz had been already recorded and described 
when .O. Cooksoniz. appeared, so that it cannot be said that no hybrid | 
between Cochlioda Neetzliana and Odontoglossum armainvillierense was 
known when O. Cooksoniz was exhibited. The trouble was that although 
the hybrid existed its parentage was not known in time to prevent a new 
name being given. We are quite satisfied that the identity of the two was 
not known until afterwards, but this fact being established we could only 
adopt the earlier name. 
There have been other cases where the parentage was not given till 
afterwards. In an earlier revision of Odontioda we enumerated four names 
that had been recorded without parentage (O.R., xix. p. 36), one of which 
was O. Lambeauiana, and it quickly brought the information that the 
parents were C. Neetzliana and Odontoglossum Lambeauianum. Unfortun- 
ately, in the meantime a plant of this parentage had been certificated and 
recorded under the name of O. Corneyana, and we had so included it in the 
revision mentioned (p. 35). Yet, on the facts being known, we amended 
the record, and added (p. 229) ‘‘O. Corneyana becomes a synonym.” It 
was at once accepted, and the two cases are exactly parallel. It is, of 
course, unfortunate that really new hybrids should appear without record of 
parentage, but they do so at times, even in the best regulaled establishments, 
and we do not think it necessary to consign them to oblivion when their 
history can be afterwards cleared up. The case of names published without 
either parentage or description is provided for in the rules, and the two 
cases are not quite identical. 
Another interesting question-—it is not the only one raised—deserves 4 
article to itself (see page 166). 
