- APRIL, 1910.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. Ite 
A NOMENCLATURE NOTE. 
In the last issue of the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society we find 
(p. 406) an appreciative review of the Orchid Stud-Book, but there is one 
remark in the inevitable note on nomenclature to which we wish to reply. 
The Reviewer remarks:—‘‘It seems a pity to discard such well-known: 
names as Brassocattleya Digbyano-Mossize . . . upon what appear 
quite insufficient grounds. Short names of the Latin form are no doubt 
preferable to long ones . . . in the vernacular; but if rules are made: 
concerning this, they should not be made retrospective at this late date.. 
Many vernacular names are Latinised in the list; thus Cattleya x ‘ Lord! 
Rothschild’ becomes C. X_ Rothschildiana.’’ And the allusion to- 
‘certain rules they have laid down” would imply that these rules are of 
the Authors’ own making. 
But the rule to which exception is thus taken is the Society’s own,. 
drawn up by a Nomenclature Committee appointed by it, and printed in its. 
own “List of Orchids Certificated from 1859 to 1893,” under the title,. 
“The Naming of Orchids for Garden purposes.” It provides that 
“ Hybrids between species raised artificially should be named in Latin,. 
with the addition . .. of the sign of hybridity, x,’ and there is further: 
the ‘‘ General Recommendation” that ‘‘The Orchid Committee should 
decline to recognise . . . any name that is . . . not applied in conformity 
with the preceding rules.’ But the Orchid Committee gave a First-class. 
Certificate to Cattleya x Lord Rothschild, thus ignoring the recom- 
mendation, when they might have put themselves right by applying the- 
tule. We hope the Society’s Reviewer appreciates the humour of putting 
-the Authors in the pillory for carrying out its own rules. Again, the name 
Cattleya x Lord Rothschild is not in accordance with the Laws of 
Botanical Nomenclature, forthe Vienna Rules provide that if a name is 
given to a primary hybrid such name must be in accordance with the saidi 
laws. 
As to the name Brassocattleya Digbyano-Mossiz, it is not quite clear- 
how far the Society’s rules apply, but as it contains seven syllables it comes. 
under the prohibition of sesquipedalean names, and we may remind the 
Reviewer that the Gardeners’ Chronicle in 1889, said: ‘‘ We hope some 
means may be taken to render the specific name less cumbrous.” The 
advice was taken as long ago as 1902, when the plant became Brasso-. 
cattleya Veitchii, a name in accordance with the Laws of Botanical 
Nomenclature. 
The principle of a simple specific name has the merit of convenience 
when varietal names have to be added. Cattleya X William Murray” 
_fulgens was once recorded, but the name has been improved by its. 
