THE ORCHID REVIEW. 173 
thought good enough to be noticed, or it may be recognised as something 
else, but a good many do get recorded in a useless kind of way, for even 
when they really deserve a varietal name their particular character is not 
recorded, and when afterwards some one wants to find out what Mr. 
Blank’s variety is like he cannot ascertain, and perhaps gives it another 
name. And even if its character is recorded the result is much the same 
under the present go-as-you-please policy, for is it a notorious fact that 
many varieties have several different names, and some species of Orchids 
have more named varieties than there are distinct varieties to name. And 
still they come. 
The remedy suggested is that the Orchid Committee should establish a 
“ Hall Mark” for valuable Orchids that would be recognised by cultivators. 
But it seems to me that the Certificates already granted by the Society 
fulfil this purpose to a great extent, and would do so entirely if the rules 
supposed to be in force were always carried into effect. And even if the 
new idea were carried out, it would leave things much as they are, unless a 
new rule were made to the effect that new names should only be given by 
competent experts. This would probably be the most effectual check to the 
present growing evil, and would ensure an approach to an orderly and 
scientific nomenclature. 
The Gardeners’ Chronicle for May 16th (p. 614) alludes to Mr. Chamber- 
lain’s article, and I agree with a good deal that is said. “It was hoped,” 
it remarks, “that when the Nomenclature Committee issued its code that 
horticulturists also would adopt the rules, and that there would be less 
reason for protests such as Mr. Chamberlain now makes. Unfortunately, 
things go on as before, if not worse. The Orchid Committee is blamed for 
this state of things, and to some extent it is doubtless responsible. It 
must, however, be borne in mind that the ordinary meetings of the Com- 
mittee afford no more fitting opportunities for the discussion of intricate 
points of affinity or nomenclatare than the House of Commons does for the 
consideration of the racial differences between Boers and Kaffirs, Teutons 
and Britons, or the limitations, geographic or otherwise, between Venezuela, 
Guiana, and Brazil. One way out of the difficulty is to appoint a Com- 
mittee of experts to determine the general points at issue, and arrive at 
some conclusion, arbitrary or otherwise, on points of detail as they arise. 
This, as has been stated, has already been done, so far as generalities are 
concerned ; but who pays heed to the enactments? Who is to enforce 
them? The rules for nomenclature, with one or two exceptions, where 
commercial bias was allowed to over-ride scientific interests, are very good 
