66 THE ORCHID REVIEW. (Marcu, rorr. 
The nomenclature of Orchids seems to be a subject of perennial interest, 
for several communications on the subject have recently reached us. One 
of them is an objection to a change of name, on what may be termed 
abstract principles. ‘‘ A name once given should not be changed, for the 
law of priority is against it.’” But the law of priority is only one of several 
tules which must be taken together, and it only protects names which are 
given in accordance with the said rules: It only applies to correct names. 
No particular name was mentioned, but, curiously enough, the same post 
brought us a letter of thanks for correcting a name which had been applied 
in incorrect form—not from a mere outsider, but from the actual owner of 
the name. This, however, is a digression, the question is whether such an 
alteration is permissible, and the question must be answered in the affirma- 
tive, for the said law distinctly permits the change of incorrect names. A 
law which failed to do this would defeat its own object, which is to secure 
an orderly system of nomenclature. The simplest way to avoid unnecessary 
change of names is to apply the rules in the first place. 
The rule for naming primary hybrids is perfectly clear, and easily applied, 
but it is admitted that its extension to secondary hybrids and those of more 
complex parentage is not satisfactory, because of the marvellous amount of 
reversion that takes place, even among seedlings from the same seed-pod. 
It is this that justifies the rule of treating them as florists’ flowers. If they 
showed the same amount of uniformity as primary ones there would be 
no difficulty of bringing them all under the same rule. And even among 
secondary hybrids there are many cases where the convenience of treating 
all the seedlings from the same capsule as forms of one is far greater than 
any disadvantages it may possess. Our Note Book contains several striking 
examples of this, but they must be deferred for the present. 
One correspondent frankly proposes that all hybrids should be named 
as florists’ flowers, in order to distinguish them from species. But does he 
always know which are hybrids and which species? We do not. Many 
hybrids occur wild, and there are plants that have been described as species 
whose origin is at least problematical. Perhaps he would limit the 
proposal to hybrids of artificial origin, but that would not get us out of 
the difficulty, for it would, presumably, 
leave the mass of existing names 
untouched. 
He would never propose re-naming them on popular lines. 
_ And, unfortunately, in the case of Orchids, the naming of hybrids as florists’ 
flowers does not meet the case. 
A florist, let us say, raises a large batch of 
seedlings. 
One of them is an improvement on existing kinds, and is 
named and propagated until a stock is acquired for distribution. The 
remainder are thrown away. Those distributed are all subdivisions of one 
