1 62 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



originally consisted of two words, connected by a conjunction, and a long 

 essay becomes necassary to put the matter straight. 



Now the object which the writer had in view was how to avoid piling 

 up confusion and trouble in the future — a thoroughly praiseworthy object— 

 and one naturally assumes that the name which called forth such com- 

 ments did really convey some sort of information about the plant, either its 

 history, native place, raiser or discoverer, the colour of the flower, shape 

 of the leaves, or at least some little item of information which had led to 

 all this trouble. But no, it is none of these things ! The name had no 

 connection with the plant in any shape or form— but even this did not save 

 it from confusion. Happily it was not an Orchid, but it might have been 

 all the same, for the principle applies as well to one plant as another. 



The moral which I should have drawn from such a case would have 

 been quite different. I should have suggested that, whenever possible, 

 names should have some significance, some connection with the plant, or, 

 if purely complimentary, that they should at least be drawn up according 

 to some recognised standard, and with some slight element of finality about 

 them. If the writer would only realise that the confusion arose not from 

 following a salutary rule, but owing to the departure from it, there would 

 be more hope of improvement. The question once asked, " Shall we ever 

 have a universal language ? " was much more to the purpose. 



I would commend to the writer's notice some very pertinent remarks 

 which appeared in a- recent issue of Nature (in a review of a book), which 

 are sufficiently appropriate to repeat here : — 



" In the chapter on « Orchid Names ' the author follows the popular 

 lead by finding fault with the existing Orchid nomenclature, and with the 

 inevitable result that he is unable even to hint at a better method than that 

 for which we have to thank a long line of patient and clever men, who 

 have been working on the subject in all ages since the classification of 

 plants began. It should be remembered that the question is not as to 

 whether the name is good or bad Latin or Greek, expressive or not expres- 

 sive, but that it is intended as a means of identifying the plant in every 

 civilised quarter of the globe, an end which no system of popular names 

 could accomplish, but which has worked under the present system of 

 scientific names in a marvellously satisfactory manner. To apply it to 

 his own case. Deprived of the scientific names he finds fault with, Mr. 

 Boyle's book would have been impossible in its present useful form." 



I may add that, not having seen the book, I am ignorant of the precise 



