THE ORCHID REVIEW. 261 
I had hoped to get away from this vexed nomenclature question, at all 
events for a time, but it will keep cropping up, and if the discussion serves 
to effect an improvement in the present go-as-you-please system probably 
no one will regret it. And now to the points raised. I should call some of 
the names suggested above abbreviated anagrams, and whenever such names 
have a definite meaning of their own, or for any other cause are misleading, 
I think they ought to be avoided. For example, “ flagrans”’ and ‘‘ triceps”’ 
are Latin words, and I hardly expect that the hybrid between Lelia flava 
and Epidendrum fragrans will turn out a “ glowing” thing; nor should I 
describe Lzlio-cattleya X Frederick Boyle as ‘‘ three-headed.” And I am 
afraid that none of the names suggested for the hybrid C. Bowringiana X 
C. bicolor would afford any clue to its parentage. Again, I would not 
recommend such a name as “ Schilliczii.””. One would immediately enquire, 
“ Who is Mr. Schillicz?”” and I have not yet forgotten the result of an 
enquiry I once made about a Mr. Shuttry, of Masdevallia fame. Leelio- 
cattleya X Frederick Boyle I have always thought should have been called 
L.-c. X Boyleana (Boylei if it had been raised by Mr. Boyle), but the 
former name having been given our authorities retain it. I fully agree 
with Mr. Mead that crosses between distinct species ought to be named in 
accordance with botanical canons, and I think that that rule of the American 
Pomological Society might be applied to such cases, of course with the 
necessary modifications. The question is—shall we insist upon it ? 
It just occurs to me that this question of the nomenclature of hybrids 
was fully discussed in the first volume of the Orchid Review, and on turning 
the matter up (pp. 340-343) I find that most of the points now raised were 
then touched upon, and I am unable to suggest any improvements. From 
the remarks there given it is clear that no botanical canon is violated when 
a hybrid is spoken of by the joint names of its two parents, even if it has 
another name (see p. 341 above cited), so that Cypripedium xX Harrisianum 
may be called C. x barbato-villosum, if for any purpose it is more con- 
venient. For example, one may speak of the polymorphic hybrid, 
Odontoglossum x glorioso-crispum, thus briefly indicating the extensive 
series of hybrids between these two species, without coming under the 
prohibition of names a-foot-and-a-half long. 
I would briefly sum up my suggestions as to compound names thus :—I 
do not think they are always desirable or necessary. Such happy com- 
binations as Cypripedium x Lawrebel are not always possible. But if such 
names are given, they should not be so much abbreviated, or the remaining 
letters so much transposed, that their origin is lost. And the resulting 
abbreviated anagram should not be identical with any real word, or be 
misleading in any other way. Thus I think that Epicattleya < Bona-nox 
