6 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
that you took it for granted that the derivation ‘ Venus’-foot Orchids’ was 
correct, which is not the case, so that the cause of your objection to the 
amended spelling disappears.” 
My correspondent makes out a very good case for the amended spelling 
of these names, and I find that his reference to Linnzus is correct, though 
that author, like several others, got a little mixed in writing ‘‘ pedion”’ a 
equivalent to ‘‘ calceus,” meaning a shoe or slipper (unless, indeed, the “i> 
was dropped out by a printer’s error). I did assume, in discussing the 
question (O. R., vi., p. 37), that the derivation given in the Botanical 
Magazine as Venus’-foot Orchids was correct, and am not sorry to find the 
case for still further alteration, into Cypripodium, &c., has vanished. 
The exact meaning of my remarks is sufficiently clear, and one sentence it 
may be worth while to repeat :—‘‘ The case of ‘ Paphiopedilum’ is a little 
different, but the advantage of uniformity in spelling is obvious, and 
considering the liberties taken with pre-existing names, I am not disposed 
to quarrel with those who choose to drop the ‘l’. . . . [sega Rave 
uniformity of spelling at all events” (J. c. p. 38). Perhaps now we shall 
be able to get it, for, of course, my correspondent will continue to lead his 
amateur friends and gentlemen of the press in the right way. 
As to the idea of one name for science and another for gardens, I think 
we have had enough of that already. For years, Reichenbach followed 
this illogical and absurd system, in the case of a few genera, and with 
most remarkable results. In 1862, he pointed out that the plant known in 
gardens as Phalznopsis amabilis was not the true plant of that name, 
yet he continued to use the erroneous nam 
and in 1875, when describing Phalzenopsis 
saying :— 
e in his subsequent writings, 
xX leucorrhoda we find him 
“T have used in the Latin description the name of P. Aphrodite, 
in the English remarks I speak of P. amabilis. The plant alluded 
to is, however, the same.” He then went on to explain that Lindley had 
erroneously transferred the name from the Javan to the Philippine plant, 
yet it was advisable to continue the blunder “ for horticultural purposes,” 
so as (will it be believed?) “not to make a terrible confusion.” And so 
the blunder went on until 1886, when Rolfe gave us a revision of the 
genus, in which he adopted the correct names; Messrs. Veitch, in their 
Manual followed suit, and the thing was done. The biggest grumble I 
remember to have seen against it came from Reichenbach himself. 
In the same way arose his famous 
After he had described Selenipedium as 
describe the species as Cy 
for science, and thus ey 
“ double-barrelled nomenclature.” 
a distinct genus, he continued to 
pripedium for garden purposes, and Selenipedium 
ery novelty was launched with a double name-— 
