THE ORCHID REVIEW. 429 
terrible ‘‘ Prot ocryptoferox”’ to be reckoned with, even after the consent of 
the guardian ‘‘ brother-in-law” had been obtained (vide history). At all 
events it is interesting to learn a little more about the habitat of the plant. 
Another interesting event to which I have not yet specially referred is 
the re-discovery of the beautiful Lelia Jongheana (ante, p. 173). The 
plant had long been a desideratum in collections—almost a myth, some 
would have regarded it, but for the fact that its portrait had appeared more 
than once, and that at least one hybrid from it had been raised. These 
facts seemed substantial enough, as well as its original history, and yet the 
plant was to all intents and purposes lost sight of, so far as collections 
generally were concerned, for about a quarter of a century. It seems now to 
have come quite unexpectedly, for the plant which flowered with Mr. 
Keeling was out of an importation sold a year previously by Messrs. F. 
Sander & Co., as “ Lelia sp.,” but was recognised on being submitted to 
Kew for determination. In any case Messrs. Sander must be congratulated 
on its re-introduction, which will soon enable us to judge better of its 
value for decorative purposes. 
A short time ago a very pretty hybrid was figured in the Dictionnaire 
Tconographique des Orchidées under the name of Cypripedium x Souvenir de 
Roch Jolibois, Opoix. The Gardeners’ Chronicle in noticing the same 
asked— Would it not be preferable to call it simply C. Jolibois x?” 
(Sept. 16, p- 217). M. Cogniaux in the August number of the Chronique 
Orchidéenne (p. 250) replies—the answer somehow seems to have got in 
advance of the question, but never mind that :—‘‘ We think that our 
influential London contemporary isright. It isa veritable abuse to inflict 
upon us specific names composed of four or five words. In principle, the 
specific part of the name should be limited to a single word—as an 
exception we might even tolerate two words—and we are inclined to rank 
ourselyes among those who propose to reject, or to consider as vated 
all names in which the specific part comprises more than two words. 
All this is distinctly promising. As my readers know, it is a question 
Which I have been hammering at, on and off, and in almost every con- 
ceivable form, for years. But let that pass. We are now nearly agreed that 
the specific name should consist of only a single word. M. Cogniaux would 
tolerate two words, in exceptional cases. I would stipulate that in such 
exceptional cases the two words should invariably be joined by a hy; phen, as 
in the case of Cattleya x Victoria-Regina, and perhaps M. Cogniaux would 
not seriously dissent from this. Next comes the question of the form which 
the single word should take. In the above case the Gardeners’ Chronicle 
