24 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [JANUARY, 1913. 
which had been dealt with in a previous sentence. It simply means “ more 
complex,” that is to say, hybrids containing three, four, or even five species. 
A plant is not less a hybrid because two or three additional species are 
brought into the ancestry. And you should have finished quoting the rule : 
‘‘ The name, which is' subject to the same rule as the names of species.” 
You should also have cited the example given: “‘ X Salix Staehleri.’”’ Both 
testify against you, and confirm the practice of the Orchid Stud-Book, of two 
years earlier date. 
C. Gardeners are themselves largely to blame for these fearful Orchid 
names, because instead of naming their home-bred Orchids as other breeders 
.do, they asked the botanists to do it for them. I am heretic enough to say, 
** blow the conferences and confound the botanists who have helped to make 
Orchid names what so many of them are.’’ (Proceeds to quote a string of 
them, nine in number). . 
B. Three of those names were given by nurserymen or amateurs, and 
not one of the others was given by a botanist in that incorrect form. . Two 
are not even current, and one is purely imaginery. Even those in current 
use are only so in opposition to rule. Do you call that criticism ? 
C. Only last week two new Orchids were shown and certified as Sophro- 
Lzlio-Cattleya Carna and Lzlio-Cattleya Golden Oriole var. Ruby. I 
should have called them Cattleya Carna and Cattleya Ruby. The plain 
common sense plan would be to give a hybrid the’same generic name as 
the parent it most resembled. ‘‘I would mop off these long and ugly 
names and substitute better.”’ 
B. The plants you mentioned are not Cattleyas at all, and one of them 
has already a specific name. Your plan would not only give us several 
different specific names for seedlings out of the same capsule-——Cypripedium 
aureum over again—but it would even put some of them in one genus and 
some in the other. 
C. Names should be easy to read, write, and speak. © 
B. 1 agree, and you could easily have cited me as one of the earliest 
and most consistent advocates of the system—Cattleya Zenobia dates from 
1887. I seldom use any other when personal choice is possible. 
C. That proves that many Orchid names are abominable. My little 
dog was named Nebuchadnezzar, but my children insisted that Neb. was 
long enough. 
The moral of this discussion seems to be that those who name our plants 
should observe the rules which have been drawn up by representative 
Committees for their guidance, and that confusion in nomenclature arises 
chiefly from their neglect ; not from the use of Latin names. If it has this 
effect the discussion will have served a useful purpose. 
