72 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
but who would ever dream of adding an ‘‘i” to the genitive? There are 
plenty of other cases, and “ Triana” is absolutely parallel withthem. The 
simple fact is ‘‘Trianzi” is erroneous. Don’t change your labels again, 
but leave those who prefer the blunder to follow their choice. 
. I note with pleasure that the Gardeners’ Chronicle, in its issue of February 
16th, supports the principle of treating all hybrids derived from the same 
parentage as forms of one, and naming them accordingly, however variable 
the progeny may be. ‘‘ We would urge,” it remarks, ‘‘ that this variation 
in the progeny is no excuse for substantially different names, but that the 
same crosses should always bear the same (the original) names, and that in 
the case of extraordinary and evidently different varieties, a varietal name 
should be added. . . . What we wish to impress is, that hybrids which 
have been obtained from the same parents should be kept under the original 
and well-known names, no matter how dissimilar they may be, in order to 
preserve order in a subject which would otherwise soon become beyond the 
depth of human understanding. Extraordinary varieties must of course be 
recorded, but let them be kept under their proper heads.” This course I 
have recommended on more than one occasion, and hope in future to see it 
more thoroughly carried out. Unfortunately, the very same issue contains 
no less than eleven hybrids, all from the same cross, and probably from. the 
Same seed-pod, under different names, which surely escaped the eagle eye 
of the editor. And worse still, the same cross has already been named 
twice previously. 
Now I have no doubt these hybrids are not identical from a florist’s 
point of view. Nor have I any doubt of their beauty, or they would not 
have all received Certificates. But I am equally convinced that it would 
have been far better to call them all varieties of C. x aureum, the original 
name of the hybrid. I am fully aware that some people advocate this 
System, but if it were generally adopted the result would be something 
appalling. Let us suppose that there are forty species of Cypripedium in 
cultivation. This would allow 780 different combinations, or twice that 
number if reverse crosses are counted. And fancy all of them with thirteen 
names each! And this takes no account of secondary hybrids. And why 
only thirteen names each? That number would fail to account for all the 
forms of C. x Leeanum which I have seen, though happily they are mostly 
called varieties only, which they certainly are. I must appeal to the raiser 
of this beautiful series to accept the suggestion, and call them varieties of 
C. x aureum. ARGUS. 
