260 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
named Lelio-cattleya x Isabella—which ought to have been eligible under 
the stipulated conditions. 
All things considered, the competition seems to have been a bit of a fiasco, 
like that for the Special prizes offered by the Society in 1896 for New Plants, 
to which I have previously alluded (supra, v. p. 135), and for much the same 
reasons. In fact, the failure in both cases arose more from the nature of the 
conditions imposed than from the want of exhibits which would have been 
eligible under different rules, and this points to the necessity for some 
amendment. I would therefore suggest that in any future competition of 
this kind the words “never previously exhibited” should read “not 
previously certificated by the Society”; also that the awards should be 
open to any plant exhibited at the meeting without special entry. It seems 
absurd to disqualify a meritorious exhibit at its first time of flowering 
simply because it was shown a few days earlier, let us say at Paris, Ghent, 
or Manchester. Nor do I see why a plant should be precluded from 
competing when strong enough to show its true character, simply because it 
was exhibited last year, when its first flower was produced. It is well- 
known that hybrids are often shown at their first time of flowering, when 
obviously undeveloped, in order to get the name recorded, and thus prevent 
someone else who flowers it later from getting the credit of first raising it, 
which is perfectly legitimate. The result may be that it is passed over, OF 
the Committee may express a wish to see it again when better developed, 
and to disqualify sucha plant is absurd. The exclusion of plants previously 
certificated by the Society would suffice to exclude well-known old plants 
from the competition, and this should be all that is necessary. 
The rule requiring a special entry is one which I cannot understand, 
and defeats the object aimed at, as has previously been pointed out. 
Concerning the special prizes offered in 1896, the Council had to report: 
‘Owing to insufficiency of competition (in several of the classes there 
were absolutely no entries, and in others only one or two at most) the 
judges appointed to deal with these classes were only able to award the 
medal in one class.” And yet in this very class there was no lack of 
exhibits which were thought worthy of awards. On the contrary, they 
were too numerous, for in the Council’s Report for 1896 we find the 
following :—‘* The Council must again express their opinion that there still 
appears to be a tendency to multiply unduly the awards recommended, 
and they earnestly request the several Committees to consider seriously 
whether there is not a real danger of impairing the value of these dis- 
tinctions by such increase of their number” (Report of the Council, p- 3)+ 
As a matter of fact 36 First-class Certificates and 100 Awards of Merit had 
