THE ORCHID REVIEW. 9 
either search through the whole number, or turn to the index, both of 
which involve a great waste of time, and the latter is not always successful, 
as we have frequently proved. If a reference is given, the page should 
always be added. The author says, ‘“‘ My citations vary - from 
the rules of botanists.” Let him at once disabuse his mind m this idea. 
They are only the rules of common sense and convenience. 
Our next objection is a strong one, for in his treatment of generic 
hybrids the author has been particularly unfortunate. He observes—‘ I 
have handled the material on hand without creating any new names.” We 
wish we could congratulate him. On the contrary, all the hybrids between 
Cattleya and Lelia, which ever since 1887 we have called Lzlio-cattleya, 
are transferred to Catlelia; Phaio-calanthe becomes Phalanthe (as if a 
hybrid between Phalznopsis and Calanthe were intended) ; Sophro-cattleya 
is changed into Sophroleya ; and Zyg lax me ee Brasso-cattleya 
also becomes Brassoleya, and for Epi is ituted Epileya. 
Epilelia, however, is retained (note how nearly it resembles the sapien 
word), as are also Epipt hrolzlia, and Hab i The 
result is over eighty new names, whieh are absolutely unnecessary, and 
even misleading. Where, for example, is ‘“Catlelia albanensis, Rolfe,” 
described? And the same may be said of all the references given, in all of 
which the plants are mentioned under other names. The author elsewhere 
remarks, “Ifa cross has been given the name formed by combining the 
terms of his parents—no matter whether it has been done rightly or 
wrongly accorded to botanic usage—uphold the name . . . do not try 
and re-christen it.” It may be Mr. Hansen's opinion that some of the 
hybrid generic names might originally have been more abbreviated, but his 
own remarks shonld have prevented the perpetration of six new generic, 
mad over "eighty 1 new xiapi synonyms. But if he must indulge in 
g, why not Epinitis and Haborchis? And if 
Lzlio-cattleya is too long why stop at Catlelia, when Leleya is so much 
shorter? It fits Epileya admirably, and the similarity to Lelia would give 
no trouble to those who can appreciate the subtle difference between 
Sobralia and Sobraleya (to be mentioned presently). 
Then we get a batch of new names for supposed or r reputed generic 
crosses, as Cysepedium (between Cypripedium and Selenipedi Epidro- 
_ (Epidend and Dendrobium), Odopetalum (Odontogl and 
Schombletia (Schomburgkia and Bletia), Sobraleya (Sobralia 
and pe ee Pp i hronitis and Brassavola), oi 
de Besa = POETS and Zygodend (Zy and 
g the first the author remarks : aa If I propose to 
order under this Srepiiation -name all those attempts at cross-fertilisation 
of species of the genera Cypripedi and Selenipedi I do not see why 
