7° THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
careful records, and the paintings of certificated flowers, someting might be 
done to prevent such occurrences in future. Owners of plants also might 
assist by consulting one or other of the numerous lists of hybrids that have 
been published before naming any of their seedlings. 
I have noted down several recent examples of this confusion, for one or 
two of which it is difficult to find an excuse. Ona future occasion I may be 
able to discuss them. 
We have not yet done with the Cypripedium question, as, indeed, I 
indicated in my concluding note last month, and we may now hear the views 
of other correspondents on the subject. E. F.C. writes:—From sundry 
notes in the pages of the OrcHID REVIEW, it would seem that the word 
‘‘ Cypripedium,” after having been recognised as the name of a genus for a 
long time, is in some danger of being thrown over, and a new name 
‘Cypripedilum,” substituted for it, which seems rather a pity. There 
appears to be no doubt that Linnaeus had a slipper in mind, when he 
framed the word Cypripedium, but whatever the true derivation, it seems 
clear that, at the time of the original description, there was some confusion 
of ideas, or of grammar, but it seems far better now that the word Cypripedium 
should be retained, on the ground of long recognition, if it can be by any 
means justified. The same argument would apply to Selenipedium. As to 
the names of the other genera, apparently correctly formed out of Cypri- 
pedium, priority, as well as the natural sense of the words, seems certainly to 
require that two at least, viz., Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedilum, should 
be so spelt, the idea of a slipper being distinctly in the namer’s mind. To 
allow uniformity of ending to count against priority would seem to open a 
dangerous door, and raise a question as regards other allied genera. 
: W. E. B. writes :—Cypripedium or Cypripedilum?—A correspondent 
in your January number (p. 5) remarks that “the difference between the 
correct and incorrect word is very slight, especially if pronounced correctly. 
The popular pronunciation of ‘ pedium’ with a long e (like peedium) is 
incorrect, because « in Greek is always short, and ped-i-lum (or ped-il-um) 
sounds better than ped-i-um (both e and i being sounded short).” So it 
may ; but it is xot so pronounced correctly, and exposes a shocking “ false 
quantity.” The Greek iota (1) is not like the Greek epsilon ( € ) invariably 
short, and in the word médidov, pedilon—a sandal—it is as long as it 
can be. With the new spelling, the pronunciation is Cypripe-die-lum, and 
so with the other three genera. The pronunciation Cypri-peddylum is a 
monstrosity—almost a “ freak.” Bigeneric—I mean Graeco-Latin words 
are so common that they have to be accepted, but ‘ false quantities ” may 
be arrested at sight. Adopting the derivation from the “foot cover,” t-¢» 
