THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



DIES ORCHIDIANI. 



I have not yet alluded to the interesting article on Brassavola hybrids 

 which appeared in the March number, but communications received render 

 such a course desirable. M. Chas. Maron writes objecting to a change of 

 name of certificated hybrids, and proceeds to say :— " I see that the name of 

 Brassocattleya X Maroni has been given to the hybrid which I showed in 

 March, 1899, under the name of Lselio-cattleya X Imperatrice de Russie. 

 It is said that the name of L.-c. X Digbyano-Mendelii was afterwards 

 imposed. J wonder by whom, and for what reason, as the Committee of 

 the R.H.S. had certified it under the name I gave it, and under which I 

 wish to keep it. If Bentham made a mistake in placing Brassavola 

 Digbyana with L^lia we may adopt the generic name of Brassocattleya, 

 and call it B. X Imperatrice de Russie. There are in England plants 

 bearing such names as Empress of India, Princess of Wales, Queen of 

 England, and many others, and I do not see any objection to the name I 

 first gave to the hybrid." 



I cannot give the exact history of the change of name, but I remember 

 that in the summary of Orchids certificated by the R.H.S. in 1901 it was 

 remarked (page 18) : - " Lcelio-cattleya X Digbyano-Mendelii was 

 certificated three times, the forms being called Hesslevar., Tnng Park var., 

 and Veitch's var." I believe the R.H.S. Orchid Committee have adopted 

 the principle of one specific name for the same hybrid, and thus the 

 •certificated names should have been L.-c. X Imperatrice de Russie, Hessle 

 var., &c. Did they overlook their earlier certificate, or is there some other 

 reason for the change of name ? 



With respect to the objection to changing certificated names, apart from 

 other considerations, we are likely to be confronted with the difficulty of 

 ascertaining what these names really are. At a recent meeting of the 

 R.H.S. I saw a very beautiful plant labelled "Cattleya amethystoglossa 



