68 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [MARCH, 1910. 
admissible. It was owing to this fact that the name of P. X Vacuna was 
adopted in the Stud-Book. 
We have mentioned this matter in detail, because it ‘is typical of a large 
number of cases of confusion, which we cannot help thinking might and 
ought to be avoided. Weare not alluding to mere mistakes, but to matters 
in which questions of principle are concerned. We have already pointed out 
that the R.H.S. sometimes give certificates to plants that are not named 
in accordance with its own rules, yet the General Recommendations 
attached to the Rules state, ‘‘ The Orchid Committee should decline to 
recognise any unauthorised name, . . . or one which is not applied in 
conformity with the preceding rules.” And this neglect sometimes leads to 
complications. Some time ago they certificated a primary hybrid under a 
vernacular name, which was amended in the Stud-Book. Afterwards 
another primary hybrid was certificated under the amended name, and we 
wrote to the exhibitor suggesting a new name. He replied, pointing out the 
recognition of the vernacular name, adding, however, that he had not the 
slightest objection to the suggested amendment. 
It is the nomenclature of secondary hybrids that is giving most 
trouble, and we are fully aware that the R.H.S. Rules say “‘ Crosses between 
varieties raised artificially should receive suitable vernacular or informal 
names.” We, on the other hand, adopted the idea that may be briefly 
expressed as ‘‘One cross one name,” pointing out that the other rule in such 
a case as Paphiopedilum X aureum had permitted nearly forty distinct 
names for the products of a single cross. We issued a protest at the time, 
and these plants are now mostly classed as varieties of P. X aureum. The 
difficulty of what would otherwise be a perfectly rational system is the wide 
range of variation often seen among seedlings from the same capsule, and 
especially the fact that some of them more nearly resemble seedlings 
obtained from different crosses. This is the fact which best supports the 
argument for naming them as florists’ flowers, but if such a rule is to be 
observed, it should be accompanied with the proviso that only the most 
distinct and improved forms should be named, all others being ignored. 
Otherwise it opens the ground for endless confusion. The other day a 
hybrid between Dendrobium x Ainsworthii and D. Findlayanum was certifi- 
cated by the R.H.S., but a glance at the Stud-Book shows thirteen different 
names already for this cross. There all are treated as forms of D. x 
melanodiscus, which at al] events establishes a connection between them. 
It is a more logical course than that of treating all of them as distinct hybrids, 
especially as several resemble each other very closely. A similar remark 
applies to many other secondary hybrids, and there are primary hybrids, and 
even species, which vary considerably, yet a system of varietal names serves 
to distinguish them.—Ep. 
