1 94 THE ORCHID REvlEW. 



the inviolability of the registered names of Certificated Orchids, and I 

 remarked at page 129 that, apart from other considerations, we were likely 

 to be confronted with the difficulty of ascertaining what those names really 

 were. The various reports of the recent Temple Show furnish other 

 examples than the one I called attention to. You state, at page 175, that 

 a First-class certificate was given to M. Ch. Vuylsteke's beautiful 

 Odontoglossum X ardentissimum, but the other reports call it O. crispum 

 ardentissimum, and the question arises which is correct. The plant, I 

 observed, was exhibited under the former name, and one might suspect 

 that the alteration was made by the Orchid Committee, but then a con- 

 fusion occurs with respect to three other of M. Vuylsteke's Odontoglossums. 

 You say that Awards of Merit were also given to O. X concinnum, O. X 

 dulce, and O. X venificum, and in this some other reports agree, but the 

 Gardener's Chronicle reports these also as varieties of O. crispum. In the 

 face of these contradictions, I suppose we must again await the Society's 

 official report, to know what the recognized names really are, as in the 

 case of Cattleya amethystoglossa Sanderse. 



But if the officially recognised names should happen to be botanically 

 incorrect, what then ? I make the remark because of the uncertainty as to 

 what these plants really are. Your report says :— " The parentage of these 

 four hybrids was not recorded, but they seemed to combine the characters 

 of O. Pescatorei and heavily spotted forms of O. crispum." This 

 uncertainty is unfortunate, but we know that M. Vuylsteke has been 

 phenomenally successful in raising hybrid Odontoglossums, and I have a 

 shrewd suspicion that these plants were not imported ones. But if raised 

 artificially something ought to be known respecting their origin, and if 

 known it ought to be recorded when the plants are exhibited. 



The Manchester Orchid Society has a rule that " Members are 



requested to state the parentage of all Hybrid Orchids submitted for 

 adjudication when possible, otherwise they are liable to disqualification." 

 The object is good, but I do not know how far it is acted upon. Indeed 

 the wording of the rule is suggestive of a request for information for the 

 guidance of the Committee rather than anything of a penal character, and 

 the final clause was perhaps only added as a mild way of dealing with 

 refractory exhibitors— if such there should be— who withold information 

 from the Committee which they are known to possess. Of course it is 

 sometimes impossible for the raiser to state the parentage of a hybrid, for 

 seedlings have a way of coming up in the most unexpected places, owing to 

 the seeds getting blown away, displaced by watering, and occasionally, I 

 believe, through being carried about by ants, but such accidents can 



