THE ORCHID REVIEW. 137 
shortest procurable names, 7.¢., Latin binomials. And he further adds that 
‘‘ where the parentage of a simple specific hybrid is known, there seems 
to be an overwhelming advantage on the score of precise information in the 
old compounded name, long though it be.” As to the suggested alterations, 
I am afraid they do not amount to much. The abbreviation ‘‘ Hort.” is 
already in use, and well understood, which precludes its application in the 
way proposed, while ‘‘f’’ would not indicate that a plant was of hybrid 
origin. To indicate a variety it is not wanted, if a specific name is used, 
and is it in the least likely that those who omit the latter would trouble 
about the other? And florists’ flowers should be, and usually are, named 
in the vernacular, so that here again ‘‘f” is unnecessary. Secondary 
hybrids might, perhaps, be treated as florists’ flowers, always remembering 
that only such of these as are improvements on existing forms are named 
and kept, the rest being discarded after being proved. 
A new system would either only add one more to those we have already, 
or else supersede the existing one, which is not in the least, likely ; and it seems 
to me that it would entail far less trouble to regulate the old one satis- 
factorily than to apply a new one. Don’t, however, suppose that a new 
system would remedy existing evils, for the go-as-you-please policy would 
prove just as workable with a new system as with the old one. 
ARGUS. 
SEIMEI cu, nil. ROR Tae ma 
NOVELTIES. 
Puaius RoEBLINGH, O’Brien, in Gard. Chron., Mar. 23, p- 358-—So far 
as the description goes, this appears to be a fine form of Phaius Wallichii, 
approaching the variety Mannii, and, like it, is a native of Khasia. It 
flowered in the fine collection of the Hon. C. G. Roebling, Trenton, New 
Jersey. ; 
SELENIPEDIUM DaLLEanum, André, in Rev. Hort., Apr. 1, p. 164.— 
Acquired by M. Louis Dallé, Nurseryman, of Paris, at a sale, without any 
indication of its origin. It is a large and brilliantly coloured form, but 
whether a probable species or hybrid does not appear from the description, 
though we suspect the latter. Its relation to known forms is not indicated. 
SU aoe ane See 
EULOPHIELLA ELISABETH#. 
Referring to our note at page 65 on the above plant, to the effect that 
the flowers were not as large as those represented in the plate, the Journal 
des Orchidées remarks (page 36) that this proves that the plant was less 
vigorous, probably a little piece, and that flowers have been produced in the 
