January, 1913.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 23 
the name, and that the rule applies to ternary hybrids, or those of a higher 
(more complex) order. 
A. There is another reason against this changing of names. It makes 
an old plant into a novelty. 
B. That is only an additional reason why the name chosen should be in 
correct form at the outset. 
A. My objection to Latinised names is that they are almost exclusively 
personal complimentary names. The better way would be to give the 
person’s name in full—Cattleya John Jones, not Cattleya Jonesii. 
B. Then why did you give such names as Cypripedium Clinkaberryanum, 
Leliocattleya Brymeriana, Dendrobium Owenianum, and many others ? 
A. They were perfectly in order, as they were primary hybrids. 
B. Not Leliocattleya Brymeriana, and you did not say it was originally. 
But that is not the point. You say that such names are the “ root of the 
evil.” I don’t, and there were already the precedents Leliocattleya 
Aurora, Cassandra, Proserpine, Stella, Zenobia, &c. I have given scores o 
others. They are admirable, but their use does not exclude such names as 
Calanthe Dominyi, Veitchii, &c. 
A. The Madison Congress resolved that all garden-raised plants should 
be given specific names in the vernacular, and there is no other reasonable 
course to take. 
B. It does not prevent confusion. ‘‘ Chaos” was the only word that 
the Gardeners’ Chronicle could think of as suitable to describe the condition 
of things when the Orchid Stud-Book was published, and it said that the 
work made a definite step towards the evolution of order. It was Chaos, 
also, that led to the formation of the original R.H.S. Nomenclature 
Committee, of which you were a member. You helped to draw up the 
rules, the neglect of which has necessitated so many names being “ rejected, 
dropped, or modified,’’ and now you censure those who attempt to carry 
the rules into practice. Even the R.H.S. defends the system adopted. It 
has published its replies to questions submitted to it by the Brussels 
Congress, which were based on examples taken directly from the Orchid 
Stud-Book. The answers are: ‘‘ The specific names of these hybrids should 
be in the Latin form.” ‘‘ These specific names should consist of a single 
word.” 
A. You quote the Vienna rules as saying: ‘‘ Ternary hybrids, or those 
of a higher (more complex) order are designated like ordinary hybrids.” 
That implies that the more mixed the parentage the higher the order in 
their standing as hybrids. The Brussels rules clearly indicate the nature of 
the hybrid of a higher order: ‘‘ Ternary hybrids or those of a higher order 
(crosses between species of the same genus).” 
B. That is erroneous. Such a phrase would indicate primary hybrids, 
