THE ORCHID &EVIEW. 107 
known or not. It has therefore the necessary element of stability, and we 
believe is the system best suited for the nomenclature of all primary 
hybrids, whether of wild or artificial origin, and which, therefore, ought to 
be adopted. 
It will, of course, be asked why primary and secondary hybrids should 
be treated differently? and we think that it is not difficult to give a satis- 
factory answer. In the first place secondary hybrids are so notoriously 
polymorphic that it is almost impossible to apply uniformly the system of 
regarding all those derived from the same parentage as forms of one, and 
naming them accordingly, and as these plants are chiefly interesting 
as florist’s flowers, we think they should be judged from a. florist’s 
standpoint, and named accordingly. Why then should primary hybrids be 
treated differently ? From a florist’s standpoint there are numerous 
primary hybrids which are so inferior to others that, except for the interest 
they may possess to their raisers, they are neither worth naming nor 
keeping ; yet all crosses between distinct species are of such biological 
interest that they should be recorded. For purely scientific purposes the 
joint names of the two parents would suffice, but this is impracticable in 
many cases, as we have already seen, and as the alternative rule provided 
to meet these cases can be universally applied, we propose that it should 
be adopted for garden purposes also. It answers the florist’s purpose 
quite as well as the other, and nothing is gained by adopting a different 
system. 
It might easily be argued that the same method is as suitable for the 
nomenclature of secondary hybrids as for primary ones, and: that if the 
“x” were invariably used, it would prevent all confusion with natural 
species. In this we fully concur, and if it were necessary to treat all alike 
we should prefer the present one, for we believe nothing is more responsible 
for the growing confusion than the use of the vernacular. Its very intro- 
duction seems fatal to an orderly arrangement. It was quite easy to call 
all the hybrids between Cypripedium insigne and Spicerianum varieties of 
x Leeanum, but those between barbatum and bellatulum were all treated 
as if totally distinct—which it is notorious that they are not—-simply 
because of the introduction of a system unsuited to the purpose. C. 
x Leeanum superbum and C. x L. giganteum were all right, but “©. X 
Charles Richman Francois Peeters,” and “C. xX C. R. Marchioness of 
Salisbury” were of course, too incongruous for adoption. Had the second 
- Specific name been latinised- into Richmanii, in conformity with the 
R-H.S, rules, the additional varietal names would have been tolerable. 
: Some of the compromises between the two systems, however, as Cattleya 
o William Murray fulgens and Phalaenopsis: Baron Schréder- superba, are 
- barbarous combinations, and violate every known rule, and the mischief 
