THE ORCHID REVIEW. 297 
DIES ORCHIDIANZA. 
I was particularly glad to see the article on the species of Cattleya in the 
last Review. It was just the thing wanted, and serves to put the genus 
on an intelligible basis. Exactly a year before (p. 266) I had called atten- 
tion to the confusion which existed in the books, and commended the genus 
to the consideration of the next Orchid Conference that might be called, 
‘for the purpose of reducing the chaos of confusing names to a rational 
and scientific nomenclature.’ Cattleya seemed an almost hopeless genus 
to reduce to order, but the present revision goes a long way to dispel the 
idea. I hope the writer will complete the work by giving a fuller account 
of the different species than was possible in the preliminary essay. 
I was a little amused over the troubles of the Orchid Committee in the 
matter of Cypripedium x Lord Derby. In the first place the name was 
not allowed, but was changed to C. X Massaianum superbum before a 
First-class Certificate was awarded. Shortly afterwards, however, a mistake 
was discovered, but it then appeared that the plant was descended from the 
same two species as one called C. x W. R. Lee, which had previously 
received an Award of Merit. It was next discovered that the plant in 
question had since died, and the Committee therefore decided to allow the 
former name. So far so good, though it hardly settles the matter of what 
other seedlings from the same batch, which are not dead, are to be called, 
and I am told that others are in existence. 
But a further complication comes in, in the shape of two new claimants 
for the title, C. x Mabelianum and C. xX Andronicus to wit ; and these are 
not only very much alive, but what is more, can claim to have put in 
an earlier appearance. I am a little curious to see how our authorities will 
now deal with the matter. There is the gentleman who presides over the 
Hybridist department, for example, and I confess I don’t envy him his task 
on this occasion. I have read him one or two lectures on this nomenclature 
question already, though I have not yet succeeded in getting him to adopt 
all my ideas. “‘ Your views are all very well, Mr. Argus,” he says, “in the 
abstract, but can you get everybody to adopt them? Must I make all the 
names square with the rules of the R. H. S. Nomenclature Committee 
before I record them?” ‘‘Certainly,” I reply. “‘ Well, I'll think it over,” 
he says, “but don’t forget that the Orchid Committee can’t do that.” 
And there the matter rests for the present. 
I thought that the vexed question about Cypripedium Kimballianum 
was now settled. Nota bit of it, however. Mr. J. O’Brien now suggests 
that the writer of those notes himself ‘‘ set up a bogey in order to have the 
