SEPTEMBER, 1913.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 279 
were at hand for comparison’ (Garden, 1902, ii. p. 182). The parentage is, 
of course, only an inference, but if these two secondary hybrids occur there 
may be others, in fact twelve secondary combinations are possible, four of 
which have already been made in gardens, and now we have this additional 
one from Mr. Clark, which we have not been able to identify with any of 
the forms now referred to L.-c. elegans and L.-c. Schilleriana. The matter 
has already been dealt with in our pages (O.R., x. pp. 311, 312), and we 
may add that we are still without further information about the two 
secondary hybrids said to occur wild. 
SIMPLIFICATION OF MENDELIAN FORMUL&., 
PROFESSOR W. E. CAsTLE, in a recent issue of the American Naturalist (pp. 
170-182) expresses the need for a_ simplification of the Mendelian 
terminology now that Mendel’s original conception of segregating dominant 
and recessive characters existing in contrasted pairs has been replaced by 
the ingenious presence and absence hypothesis. Mendel’s “A” was a 
round form of pea, his ‘‘a”’ a wrinkled ; his ‘‘ B” a yellow-seeded pea, his 
“6” a green-seeded. But the significance of these terms has now changed. 
A still means a round pea, but a is simply a not-round pea; it may or may 
not be wrinkled. Likewise B is still a yellow-seeded pea, but 6 is nothing 
but a not-yellow pea; it may or may not begreen. For all that b signifies now, 
the pea may be blue, violet, indigo, or carmine. The small letters now 
mean nothing, yet we read of repulsions or associations between a and B, 
or between a and 6. Think of it! How can something be coupled with 
nothing ? or nothing be inseparably bound up with nothing? ‘It seems 
to me the consequent effect on inheritance is absolutely nothing! We need 
to abandon the dual terminology, using only one set of symbols, and in a 
single significance. The duplicate set of symbols is the chief cause of the 
present confusion. The physiological condition which produces one colour 
is as real as that which produces another, and no mere negation; it is 
simply different. There are many instances on record in which one and the 
same character may behave at one time as a dominant, at another time as 
a recessive. Different gradations of colour may result merely from 
quantitative variations in cell constituents and consequent activities, 
nothing being lost. With a single system every symbol is significant, 
and its dominant or recessive character is indicated by the symbol whether 
large or small. The original or wild type need not be described in terms of 
its mutations; it is simply written normal. New forms arise through 
recombination of simple mutations, and each mutation as it arises should 
be given some suitable descriptive name, the initial or other significant 
letter of which shall be its symbol. The system would be capable of 
indefinite expansion without constant remodelling. Mendelians can easily 
