JaANuaARY, 1913.) THE ORCHID REVIEW. 21 
NOMENCLATURE OF HYBRIDS. 
ECHOES OF A RECENT DISCUSSION. 
A HYBRID of complex parentage, in which five species are supposed to be involved, has 
recently received the name of Odontoglossum Lambardeanum, and the circumstance has 
fed toa rather protracted discussion on the question of the nomenclature of hybrids in 
general and the existing rules in particular. 
A. This complex parentage is a fair example of the confusion which is 
likely to arise from the application of Latin or Latinised names to garden- 
raised Orchids. That is the root of the evil, and it is a curious fact that 
the giving of Latin names to garden products was not begun by the raisers 
of hybrid Orchids, either amateurs or nurserymen, but by scientific 
botanists— 
B. It began long before hybrid Orchids were even thought of. 
A. In course of time the R.H.S. came to perceive that definite rules 
must be laid down for the nomenclature of garden-raised Orchids, and a 
sub-Committee was appointed to consider the subject. A rule was 
established that, so far as possible, names in the vernacular should be given 
to all garden-raised Orchids, but an exception had to be made in the case of 
primary hybrids, because so many had already been named in the Latin by 
early raisers— 
B. I thought you said “ scientific botanists.” I have been looking up 
the Report of that sub-Committee, and I find—I am reading from their 
? 
own report: ‘‘ Hybrids between species raised artificially should be named 
in Latin.” ‘The Orchid Committee should decline to recognise any 
unauthorised name, or any name that is deemed unsuitable, or one that 
is not applied in conformity with the preceding rules.” That is rather 
different. 
A. The Committee were desirous of restricting the use of the Latinised 
names to the compound forms adopted at the Paris Conference, such as 
Digbyano-Mossiz—all departures from that method being in the vernacular, 
and this method of the bi-nomial and fancy compound name, or the simple 
name in the vernacular, worked well at the time, and was followed by most 
of the principal raisers. 
B. But the double name never worked well. When “ Digbyano- 
Mossiz ’’ was proposed, the Gardeners’ Chronicle remarked: ‘‘ We hope 
some means may be taken to render the name less cumbrous.” It is too 
long, as our writers sometimes find when speaking of its white variety, 
Queen Alexandra, so they omit it. The vernacular was tried, and 
Cypripedium Charles Canham was described (by Be wd but was 
promptly changed into Canhamii. 
A. The method, I was saying, worked well, but Science once more 
