226 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
of Cattleya Aclandie was known, and that some of those present at the 
auction refrained from bidding because they had no faith in the warranty ; 
otherwise it would have fetched much more. But the Court of Appeal 
decided that the plaintiff was entitled to rely upon the warranty, and as 
evidence had been taken to show that if it had flowered white it would have 
been worth at least 100 guineas, their finding was for the amount claimed. 
The recent case seems to confirm this decision. 
I see another little contribution to the question of Orchid Nomenclature 
at page 199, aud it shows one of the difficulties which beset the subject. 
Names are often given just for private purposes, but such names often get 
recorded in various ways, and thus become as it were public property, when 
unfortunately it is sometimes discovered that other people are growing the 
same things under other names, and thus confusion is introduced. And 
this naming of individual plants as one chooses, “‘ while they are in his own 
house,” often leads to the use of names which are not in accordance with 
tule, but they get recorded just the same, and whatever may be said as to 
individual rights in the matter, it cannot be denied that it leads to a great 
deal of confusion. Whether the advocates of having a Central Authority for 
the naming of Orchids recognize all the difficulties in the way of realizing 
their wishes is, perhaps, open to question, but there can be no doubt that 
the particular practice to which allusion is made is one of the most potent 
causes of confusion in nomenclature. Mr. Le Moyne, however, asks a very 
pertinent question, which can easily be answered in the affirmative. The 
difficulty is, that it scarcely carries us any further. 
As I write, I notice that the Gardeners’ Magazine figures a plant under 
the name of “Cattleya Miss Harris yar. E. Ashworth,” which it alludes to 
as a “somewhat lengthy and incongruous name.” It might have been 
added also that it is not according to rule, and consequently does not 
qualify for inclusion in a list where “ only names are cited which agree in 
form, at any rate, with the usual binomial nomenclature” (see remarks at 
page 98 of your last volume). The fact is this hybrid was derived from 
C. Mossiz and C. Schilleriana, and, according to the R.H.S. Rules of 
Nomenclature, ought to have been called Cattleya x Harrisiz, which would 
have been correct, would have qualified the plant for inclusion in the list of 
New Garden Plants, and would have permitted the addition of a suitable 
varietal name whenever necessary, without a charge of incongruity being 
made. I therefore propose that the plant be known by the amended name 
of C. x Harrisiz in future, so as to avoid all ambiguity. 
The same question crops up in the discussion respecting duplication of 
