226 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [AUGUST, I911. 
awarded than Bronze ones, but of this he does not complain, as the Award 
of a Bronze Medal may seem hardly a commensurate award for some of 
the grand exhibits seen at the Show. “ Really,’’ he concludes, “I doubt 
whether any Committee cares to make such inferior awards as Bronze 
Medals, still less do I think any exhibitor cares to be the possessor of one.” 
The “Awards made by the Council” at Olympia is an equally 
formidable list, some 117 Medals, with nineteen Silver Cups, in addition to 
the three Challenge Cups. Here the Bronze Medals of different categories 
number twenty-eight against nine Gold Medals. How many of the different 
categories come under the heading of Duplicate Medals we do not know, 
but we have the suggestion of an exhibitor that the whole thing needs 
amendment. He suggests that instead of recording the awards of Medals, 
which are only forwarded at the request of the exhibitor, and at his 
expense, he should have the option of accepting a small money prize to 
recoup part of the expense incurred in conveying the groups to the Show, 
often over long distances. At the same time the standard of excellence 
might be raised, quality and culture being taken into consideration rather 
than the mere size of the groups. And he would like to see something 
more in the way of competition. At present it is too much like “ Here’s a 
space. Fill it, and make a show, and you will get some award.” The 
great International Exhibition next year promises to be on rather different 
lines, and if it indicates the way for some improvement it will be a matter 
for general satisfaction. 
After the protracted labours of the Nomenclature Subcommittee of the 
R.H.S., and of the later Congress at Brussels, we hoped to see something 
like uniformity of practice in the nomenclature of generic hybrids, but we 
seem doomed to disappointment. To take two recent cases, we find 
*‘ Dia-Cattleya Sandere ” and “ Diacattleya Sanderz ” for the same hybrid, 
and again, “ Sophro-Lelio-Cattleya Alethea,” <“ Sophroleeliocattleya 
Alethea,”” and ‘ Sophrocatlelia Alethea.” Two years ago the R.H.S. 
Nomenclature Subcommittee recommended that such names should be 
written without. the hyphen—a course which had already been adopted in 
the Crchid Stud-Book—and the Nomenclature Subsection of the Brussels 
Congress concurred in the practice. The second example mentioned 
contains a further departure from the “ Rules of Horticultural Nomen- 
clature” adopted, and published in our May issue (pp. 130-133). Under 
the rules for the naming of plurigeneric hybrids it is remarked “the names 
of the trigeneric hybrids Brassocattlelia and Sophrocattlelia, which are 
already in use, should be retained.” These names should have been spelt 
*‘ Brassocatlelia’’ and ‘* Sophrocatlelia ” (with a single “t’’), as when 
: 
| 
Se a 
