THE ORCHID REVIEW. 135 
DIES ORCHIDIAN. 
THE appearance of the remarkable Bulbophyllum grandiflorum in culti- 
vation, and the attendant circumstances, as recorded at page 104 of your 
last issue, seem to have caused a little commotion in the Orchid world. 
The Gardeners’ Magazine feels bound to protest against the exhibition of a 
plant of this character under such a name as B. burfordiense, especially as 
it would have been easy for a competent botanist to identify it; as, indeed, 
it was identified when afterwards referred to Kew. ‘As it is,” it proceeds, 
‘‘we have a plant certificated and noted in all the horticultural journals 
under the absurd name of Bulbophyllum burfordiense which has been 
known to botanists for fifty years as B. grandiflorum. . . . There is a 
proper course to pursue with regard to new introductions of an interesting 
character, such as this Bulbophyllum, and the President of the Royal 
Horticultural Society should set a good example by following it. This 
go-as-you-please policy with regard to the names of plants is becoming the 
bane of horticulture as well as of botany.” 
The circumstance alluded to is, perhaps, the proverbial last straw, for 
this case is not by any means an isolated one. Probably the writer thinks 
the line must be drawn somewhere or somewhen, and, at all events, I hope 
his remarks will be productive of some good, though I confess I am none 
too sanguine about the matter, for last October I called attention to a very 
similar case. The Royal Horticultural Society have a rule that ‘‘ Exhibitors 
showing, for the first time, a plant under a Latin name, should be required 
to furnish the name of the botanist who has described the plant”; and 
another that ‘‘ The Orchid Committee should decline to recognise any un- 
authorised name . + . or one which is not applied in conformity with 
the preceding rules.” It is true that another rule sets forth that an un- 
‘named, or even incorrectly named, plant may receive an award, but the 
award is to be withheld until the requirements of the preceding rules have 
been met. Now, it is evident that in the case of Bulbophyllum burfordiense 
something went wrong somewhere, for we are told that a Botanical Certifi- 
cate was awarded. The first rule had clearly not been carried out, yet the 
Committee recognised the unauthorised name; and if this was done by 
virtue of the third rule quoted, why was not the Certificate withheld until 
the name had been verified or the correct one found? Surely it is not too 
much to expect the Society to carry out its own rules ? 
Some of the papers say that the name was a provisional one. So it 
may have been, but it gets on record just the same, and is even described 
as a “ Nov. sp.” in one of them, where, however, the term is not always 
applied in the usual sense, as I have more than once pointed out. But a 
