172 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
DIES ORCHIDIANZ, 
I HAVE frequently called attention to the Nomenclature question, and, 
consequently, I read Mr. Chamberlain’s remarks in your last issue (page 133) 
with considerable interest, especially as a little discussion may clear up some 
of the doubtful points involved. Mr. Chamberlain very well points out that the 
present confusion is almost a scandal, and threatens to become intolerable 
as time goes on, for which he partly blames the Orchid Committee of the 
Royal Horticultural Society, who are supposed to have certain rules for their 
guidance, but only put them in practice occasionally. One point which he, 
brings prominently forward is the naming of reverse crosses, and he thinks 
that the rule that a reverse cross is not entitled to a distinctive name is 
open to criticism, as these often show great and marked differences. But 
then, this is frequently the case with seedlings out of the same pod, while in 
many cases reverse crosses do not present any appreciable difference, so 
that the rule breaks down pletely. Selenipedium x Sedeni, as raised 
from the reversed cross, is absolutely indistinguishable, and numerous other 
cases could be pointed out. I therefore think that the Orchid Committee 
are right in refusing reverse crosses a separate name, and even a varietal 
name I would only allow when there was some distinctive character by 
which such a plant could be distinguished, just as in the case of different 
seedlings out of the same pod. Mr. Chamberlain is undoubtedly right in 
his contention that some authentic quality should be attached to every 
distinctive name, and this would not be the case if every reverse cross were 
to receive a distinct name. The two will not run together, and now that 
the Orchid Committee have recognised the principle I hope they will © 
carry it out consistently in future. There is plenty of room for 
improvement. 
Mr. Chamberlain also remarks that the latitude allowed to what are 
called “‘varieties” is even worse than the loose treatment of hybrids. 
Every nurseryman and every amateur is permitted at his own sweet will to 
affix a distinctive name to any plant that strikes his fancy, and as there is 
no rule and no authority, so there is no limit to the abuse of the practice. 
With this I thoroughly agree. Hardly a meeting of the Royal Horti- 
cultural Society passes without a number of new names appearing, many of 
which fail to serve any useful purpose. And what is the result ?. Some one 
has a Cattleya Mossiz, let us say, that is not quite the same as others he 
has, so it is labelled Mr. Blank’s variety, or Blank Lodge variety. Perhaps 
it is good, and receives an Award, but whether or no, it catches the reporter’s 
eye and is duly recorded. Some, it is true, are ignored—possibly it is not 
