t 3 o THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



Sanderae," bearing the official ticket, " First-class Certificate," and it was 

 so recorded in the Gardeners? Chronicle and the Orchid Review, but both the 

 Gardeners' Magazine and The Garden give the certificated name as " C. 

 guttata Prinzii var. Sanderae." I shall be curious to see what the Society's 

 own official record says, but, in any case, the plant is certainly no variety of 

 C. guttata. If it were so the name, as it stands, is incorrect— that is to 

 say the word " variety " is out of place — and would have to be written " C. 

 guttata var. Prinzii subvar. Sanderae." Fortunately there is no need for 



But I must return to M. Maron's hybrid. There is also a rule— not 

 always followed, unfortunately — that specific names should consist of a 

 single word, an exception being made in a few cases where distinct words- 

 can be joined by an hyphen (as, for example, Cattleya X Victoria-Regina).- 

 M. Maron's name does not conform to this rule, unless indeed it be written- 

 " Imperatrice-de-Russie," which, I should think, no one would seriously 

 propose. To have abbreviated the name to " L.-c. X Imperatrice Hessle- 

 var.," &c, might have conformed to rule, but would probably have bee» 

 met with the same sentimental objection. The name " Digbyano-Mendelii "' 

 may, perhaps, be held to conform to rule, but is open to the same objection 

 as that of " Digbyano-Mossiae," of which the Editor of the Gardeners'' 

 Chronicle remarked:—" We hope some means may be taken to render the- 

 specific name less cumbrous." It seems to me that in transferring these: 

 plants to Brassocattleya the use of the specific names Maroni and Veitchit 

 is " felicitous." 



Now as to the generic name Brassocattleya, to which M. Maron does- 

 not object — though by the way he did not adopt it for his new hybrid 1 

 between Laelia Digbyana and Cattleya Dowiana aurea (at least, according 

 to the record)— it seems clear that Bentham did make a mistake in referring 

 Brassavola Digbyana to Laelia, so far as the characters of the plant are 

 concerned, but a different view of the matter reaches me from another 

 correspondent to which I must now allude. 



It is said that Brassavola Digbyana hybridises with Laelia, and, there- 

 fore, must be allied to it. The remark is said to apply to Cattleya also, 

 but the worst of it is that it does not help us. If it is intended as an 

 argument that Brassavola Digbyana is a Laelia, and not a Brassavola — the 

 view taken by Bentham — it might also be used to show that the plant is a 

 Cattleya, and incidentally that all Laelias are Cattleyas (if they will hybridise 

 with them) and vice versa. But Cattleya also hybridises with Brassavola 

 proper, and thus the circle is practically complete. Following the argu- 

 ment, it remains for some one to cross Laelia Digbyana with Brassavola 



