322 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [NoOVEMBER, IQII. 
any record about it. Unless this record can be found, or it can be shown 
that the name appeared in some Catalogue before L.-c. Truffautiana was 
recorded, we think that the latter has the right of priority, for the exhibition 
of a plant without a subsequent record does not secure priority. We have 
always felt a doubt in this case, perhaps even shared the reluctance which 
is evidently widely felt to see so good and applicable a name as “ luminosa”’ 
set aside. There are several similar cases, and the moral is that suitable 
descriptive names should be given whenever possible, and, further, that 
when plants so named are exhibited they should be duly recorded. 
Speaking of Nomenclature reminds us that the last issue of the Journal 
of the Royal Horticultural Society contains an article on Horticultural 
Nomenclature, which includes the ‘‘ Rules of Horticultural Nomenclature 
adopted by the Subsection of Nomenclature at the International Congress 
at Brussels, 1910.” As they were given in extenso in our May issue (pp. 
130-133), we need not repeat them, but there is an interesting preface, 
including some Questions addressed to the Society previous to the Congress, 
and the Society’s Replies, which we may touch upon. 
In the first place the Society considers it essential that the rules adopted 
at the Vienna Congress should be strictly binding upon horticulturists, but 
agrees that these rules require to be supplemented, in order to meet 
numerous cases not already provided for. Going into details, they think 
that Latin names for horticultural varieties should not be proscribed, but 
should be restricted to forms of plants that are not recognised as ‘‘ florists’ 
flowers.” The latter should receive fancy names or names in the vulgar 
tongue. Asregards varietal names they think that these should be as short 
as possible, and should not exceed two words. The recommendations as 
regards publication are pretty much in accord with the rules subsequently 
adopted, and may be passed over, which brings us to the question of the 
names of hybrids, and we may give the next few questions and replies in 
detail. 
Question.—In what language should the specific name of a hybrid be 
expressed ? Many authors express the specific name of hybrids either in 
Latin or in some generally familiar language. Others consider this name 
should be in Latin; thus, Messrs. Rolfe and Hurst (Orchid Stud-Book) 
translate into Latin all specific names expressed in other languages. 
Example: Cattleya x Princesse Clementine becomes in their work C. X 
Clementine. 
Reply.—The specific name of such hybrids should be of the Latin form. 
Question.—Should the specific name of a hybrid be expressed as a single 
Re us 
