THE ORCHID REVIEW. 359 
NOMENCLATURE OF ORCHIDS. 
I BEG again to call attention to the extraordinary laxity of the 
Orchid Committee of the Royal Horticultural Society in regard to the 
nomenclature of Orchids. They may, perhaps, plead that it is not their 
fault that growers or sellers of Orchids give improper names to their plants, 
but surely they might refuse to recognise such plants, or to bestow on them 
First-class Certificates and Awards of Merit. This, however, they appear 
to be unwilling to do, and the result is that confusion is becoming 
worse confounded. 
At the exhibition at the Drill Hall on October 13th Lelio-Cattleya 
x T. W. Bond was shown as a cross between Cattleya labiata and Laelia 
purpurata. If the Cattleya parent was Warneri, the plant has already 
been named as Lelio-Cattleya x eximia, and again as Lalio-Cattleya 
X Valvassorii. If the seed parent is labiata autumnalis, it has been named 
before as Lalio-Cattleya x Wellsie, and as such has received an Award of 
Merit. 
At the same exhibition Cattleya x Triumph was passed, although it is the 
same cross as Cattleya X preciosa, which was exhibited a few months ago by 
the same grower on May 5th. 
There was also exhibited Lelia x Clarinda, which has been named before 
as Lelia X juvenilis. 
Then, at the next meeting on October 27th, Cattleya x La Belle was 
exhibited, which is the reverse cross of X Johnsoniana, which is itself the 
same cross as X Ashtoniana, both being apparently the same cross as 
C. X Minucia. 
It is easy to see from these examples what the difficulty of the collector 
is likely to be in the near future, when he attempts to identify hybrid 
Orchids. 
J. CHAMBERLAIN. 
Highbury, 
Moor Green, 
Birmingham. 
[Only one of the four plants named received an Award of Merit, 
namely, Cattleya X Triumph, which is clearly synonymous with or only 
a variety of C. X Preciosa. And it is just possible that the Committee 
may have overlooked the fact that they granted an Award of Merit to the 
same cross on May 5th last. Still, it is not too much to expect them to 
keep account of the plants to which Certificates are granted, and the latter 
Certificate should never have been given, according to their own rules. 
With respect to the rapid increase of unnecessary names, we would suggest 
that if people will persist in re-naming well-known crosses, the Committee 
