22 6 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 



parent are always to be seen ? If they are not, then all such plants must 



be disqualified by this ruling, which is a redudio ad absurdum" 



M. Peeters further remarks that the action of the Committee is an 

 attack, either upon his personal honour or upon his methods as a trading 

 firm, but I do not think that the facts warrant such an assumption, and I 

 note that " C. T. D." in a later issue (p. 22) describes it as "utterly 

 erroneous." Whether the plant in question is one of those curious 

 hybrids in which the characters of one parent are invisible, or " recessive," 

 in Mendelian language, or whether it is a stray seedling — and the most 

 careful hybridist cannot always avoid such— it would be difficult to say, 

 but there is no necessity for the extreme view taken by M. Peeters. 



The discussion seems to open up a wider question, and " C. T. D." 

 remarks that even if the Orchid in question was disqualified, owing to a 

 doubt of its hybrid character being correctly indicated by the name 

 attached, the Committee was within its rights in not granting the award. 

 The object of hybridising is to obtain new and improved types, and it 

 matters little what their origin is so far as the Committee's opinion of their 

 beauty is concerned, and he thinks that the "first principles" which should 

 guide the Committee should apply rather to perfection of form, habit, and 

 colour, than to mere "curio" combinations arrived at by hybridisation. 

 He also remarks that " one of the very first principles must always be to 

 aim at correct names, so that the records kept of the awards given may be 

 as free as possible from confusion." 



I like that last sentence, but I wish it was easier to carry out in 

 practice. I observe at page 219 of your last issue that a new hybrid is 

 described under the name of Lselio-cattleya X Hodgkinsonae, which is 

 said to have received a First-class Certificate from the Manchester Orchid 

 Society on June 5th ; but at page 215 what is evidently the same plant is 

 called L.-c. X Phoebe superba. The Gardeners 7 Chronicle for July I2lh 

 (p. 25) also calls it " L.-c. X Phoebe superba, a distinct improvement on 

 the hybrids previously seen here of this class." But L.-c. X Phoebe is 

 a form of L.-c. X Hippolyta, both being hybrids between Lselia cinna- 

 barina and Cattleya Mossiae— as a matter of fact it was derived from the 

 reverse cross— and L.-c. X Hodgkinsonse has L. harpophylla for one parent, 

 which is sufficient to stamp the two as distinct. Whether the parentage 

 was then not clearly known— and being a stray seedling this is possible— or 

 whether the Committee gave or changed the name is not clear, but no 

 doubt they will now amend the record, and thus prevent further confusion. 



