THE ORCHID REVIEW 133 
NOMENCLATURE OF ORCHIDS. 
THE present confusion in the nomenclature of Orchids is almost a 
scandal, and threatens to be quite intolerable as the number of hybrids and 
so-called varieties continually increases. I had hoped that something 
would be done by the Orchid Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society 
to bring order out of chaos; but it seems to me now that they are among 
the worst offenders, and unless they repent and change their methods, it is 
unlikely that they will be able to control the sins of others. 
As an ill ion of the p di of what is, after all, the body of 
greatest authority upon the subject in England, I will take their decisions 
in the question of reverse crosses. The other day I sent a new hybrid, 
Masdevallia Harryana X Shuttleworthii, and proposed to name it 
“Chamberlainiana.” The Orchid Committee, however, declined to 
. recognise it under a specific name on the ground that the reverse cross of 
Shuttleworthii with Harryana had already been made and named 
“‘Shuttryana.” They accordingly permit me to call my plant “ Masdevallia 
Shuttryana, Chamberlain’s variety ”—if I have patience to use so lengthy a 
description. 
On a subsequent occasion Mr. Ingram sent a new Cattleya Lawrenceana 
X Mendelii. As the reverse cross is named already “ W. Murray,” the 
Orchid Committee appear to have refused a distinct name. 
Again Messrs. Veitch sent a Lzlio-Cattleya Trianez x harpophylla. 
The reverse cross has already been named “ Doris"; accordingly the new 
hybrid is to be called ‘ Doris, variety Xantho.” 
In these three cases the rule has been that a reverse cross is not entitled 
to adistinctive name. The decision is open to criticism, as there are very 
great and marked differences in the reverse crosses of different Orchids. 
At the same time I should be prepared to submit to it if the Orchid 
Committee themselves were consistent ; but, so far from that, I find that 
at the last Show a new Dendrobium hybrid was named “ Clio,” which is 
only the reverse of ‘‘ Lutwycheanum” ; “ burfordiense” has been named, 
although it is the reverse of “dulce”; ‘ chrysodiscus” is the reverse of 
“ melanodiscus ”; and “ micans” is the reverse of ‘‘ Euryclea.” 
There are, however, worse anomalies than these arising from the way in 
which the results of the same cross—and even of the same seed-pod—have 
been allowed to be exhibited under different names. Thus, “ pallens,” 
* Aurora,” and “‘ Cybele,” are all three named hybrids of the same cross as 
“*xanthocentron.” 
“ Hebe,” “ Dido,” “ Rainbow,” and “ Luna,” are all the same cross as 
“ melanodiscus.” 
“ Thalia,” just named, appears to be almost identical with ‘‘ Rubens "— 
