36 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



Whiteley. And what untold possibilities have we not, when we come to deal 

 with C. labiata itself? Have we not hybrids between it, and its varieties 

 Dowiana, Mossiae and Trianse ? Also all sorts of combinations between its 

 varieties Dowiana, Eldorado, Gaskelliana, Lueddemanniana, Mendelii, 

 Mossiae, Percivaliana, Schrcederae, Trianas, Warneri, and Warscewiczii ? 

 M. Cogniaux was able to enumerate 474 varieties of C. labiata, without 

 including these hybrid varieties, and some have been added since, so that 

 the prospect is truly appalling ! The variety Dowiana alone seems to have 

 been crossed with nearly every other of the varieties mentioned above, and 

 it is no point in the argument that they have not been named as varieties, 

 because, if they are varieties, they ought to have been named as such, just as 

 C. X Cybele ought to have been called C. labiata var. Cybele, if the remark 

 that it "still remains a form of C. labiata " is a fact. 



But there is another side to the question, and Mr. Hurst remarks : — " Mr. 

 R. A. Rolfe, in his revision of the genus Cattleya {Orch. Rev., 1895, p. 269), 

 makes both C. Eldorado and C. Warscewiczii distinct species, each having 

 its own set of varieties, and, on the whole, this seems to be the most 

 convenient arrangement." On turning up that paper I find that the 

 question was pretty fully thrashed out, and it was shown that some of the 

 forms that have been universally treated as species are no more distinct than 

 others which are called only varieties. The simple fact is, that the genus 

 Cattleya fell into a state of the greatest possible confusion, and it is fortunate 

 that someone did attempt to place it on an intelligible footing. In practice 

 it has been the custom, even of those who make these forms varieties only, 

 to name hybrids between them as if they were species, and now that it has 

 been shown that they are more than varieties — that each indeed has its own 

 set of varieties let us adopt the rational view. A grower once remarked 

 that botanists might argue till they were black in the face, but they would 

 never make him believe that C. Dowiana was a variety of C. labiata. And 

 with a full knowledge of all the facts, can one wonder at such a remark ? 



Something is certainly wrong somewhere. Either these forms are 

 distinct species, or they are not, and it has been shown that the old ideas are 

 not in accordance with the facts as we now know them. Why then keep on 

 repeating them when we fail to put them into practice ? If these forms are 

 only varieties, let us treat them as such, and name their hybrids in 

 accordance. Let us be consistent, at all events. We do not want to have 

 a plant called one thing, and to be told at the same time that it's something 

 else. With such a system we shall never know where we are, and our 

 system of nomenclature will become even more confused that it is at present, 

 which is saying a great deal. Argus 



