166 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
far it is distinct from previously named varieties I will not undertake to say, 
and it would be as well to get this point settled before giving it more names. 
This calls to mind the case of the handsome Odontoglossum crispum 
apiatum. This name, I believe, was given at a meeting of the Orchid Com- 
mittee, in the belief that it was quite new. Some time after a writer in 
Le Jardin affirmed that it was O. crispum Duvalii, figured and described in 
the Orchidophile for 1886 (p. 255, with plate), and the very identical plant, 
its history being given in detail. The original name in some way seems to 
have been completely lost sight of. In this case there is no doubt about 
which is the correct name, and it is unfortunate that a new one should 
have been imposed. The worst of it is that these. are not two isolated 
cases, or a remedy would easily be found. 
The fact is the nomenclature of varieties is in a most unsatisfactory 
condition. As Mr. Chamberlain pointed out the other day in the Review, 
their nomenclature is even worse than that of hybrids, and that is bad 
enough. Everybody at his own sweet will and pleasure affixes a new name 
to anything that strikes his fancy, and as there is no rule and no authority 
so there is no limit to the abuse of this practice. And the result is lament- 
able. I hardly ever attend a meeting without finding several of these new 
names, often applied to old friends, and they are carefully recorded in many 
of the reports—the names that is, not how to distinguish the varieties which 
they are supposed to represent, which is quite another matter—until the 
whole thing has become a complete farce, and the prospect of an orderly 
and scientific nomenclature is every day becoming more remote. This is 
the result of the present go-as-you-please policy. 
I have just been handed a copy of the Rules of the Manchester and North 
of England Orchid Society, in which I find a clause (rule 12) setting forth 
that ‘the Committee shall cause a flower from every plant receiving a First- 
class Certificate to be painted by an artist at the expense of the person 
owning the plant, and such painting shall be the property of the Society and 
shall be kept by the Hon. Secretary in a suitable and secure place for 
purposes of reference.’ If the Society would extend the rule so as to 
include every plant exhibited under a new name perhaps it would afford an 
efficient check to the ever-increasing multiplicity of useless names. Some 
drastic measures ought to be adopted to check this glaring abuse. 
ARGUS. 
