66 THE ORCHID REVIEW. {[MarcH, 1912. 
O. promerens (deserving). The mistake arose through a misreading of the 
entry. He finally remarks that both O. Orpheus and O. Delhi should be 
relegated to their place as synonyms or varieties of O. promerens. The 
change, we believe, is in accordance with the Rules of Nomenclature, 
‘which permit the correction of an obvious mistake. 
A matter which we regard with considerable misgiving is the growing 
number of hybrids of unrecorded parentage which are now receiving certifi- 
cates, and the difficulty of afterwards referring them to their correct posi- 
‘tion. Some of them—we would not say all—are only varieties of existing 
hybrids, and we are assured that some which have been certificated under 
-distinct names are seedlings out of the same capsule, but so remarkably 
‘diverse that they cannot well be brought under the same name. It is the 
history of Cypripedium aureum over again, but the fact that in that case 
‘the parentage was known enabled the difficulty to be got over. Had the 
‘parentage been lost some of them would never have been referred to their 
‘true position. When some of the seedlings from the same capsule resemble 
other hybrids more than their own brothers and sisters one begins to realise 
‘the importance of keeping records. And it is this more than anything else 
‘which is causing hybrids of complex parentage to be dealt with as florists’ 
flowers. 
Our notes on the great Cypripedium question (page 1) have elicited some 
interesting replies, and one correspondent, who is particularly glad to find 
‘that the necessity no longer exists of using the name Paphiopedilum for the 
Asiatic species, and who admits the reasonableness of the view that the 
four genera are distinct botanically, asks whether it is not possible for 
garden purposes to continue the use of the familiar name Cypripedium for 
‘tthe whole of the cultivated species, leaving botanists to take their own 
course in their botanical writings. He suggests that this would be the 
-simplest way out of the difficulty. It may be so, and if horticulturists should 
in the future feel that another Tower of Babel is being set up it will prob- 
ably be no more difficult to accept the change then than it is now. The 
name Cypripedium seems as great a favourite in gardens as the plants, and 
the loss of the one equal to the banishment of the other. Perhaps if the 
hardy species were as generally cultivated as the tropical ones, and all were 
grown in the same house, the difficulty would not arise, for the two groups 
are as distinct as are Pleione and Ccelogyne, which brings us to another 
little matter. 
A writer in the Journal of Horticulture, signing himself ‘‘ Orchidist,” 
‘makes some comments (page 100) on the changing of well-known names, 
