APRIL, 1907. | THE ORCHID REVIEW. 99 
‘worthii a Lelia, because their respective mothers were Cattleya Bowring- 
jana and Lelia cinnabarina, yet both hybrids most resemble the father— 
which, by the way, is not conjectural, being Epidendrum radicans in both 
cases. Again, Sophrocattleya xX Batemaniana is a Sophronitis and 
Zygocolax X Veitchii a Zygopetalum. Odontioda x Bohnhoffie and O. 
X heatonensis are both Odontoglossums, but Odontioda x Bradshawiz — 
the beautiful hybrid figured at page 81—is a Cochlioda, while Brasso- 
-cattleya is a Cattleya and B.-c. x belairensisa Brassavola. Several Lzlio- 
cattleyas belong to both Lelia and Cattleya, owing to the fact that the 
reverse cross has also been raised, which makes rather a complication. 
Lastly, we do not know what Brassocatlelia x Mackayi is, because its 
mother was a natural hybrid, and we don’t know yet whether its grand- 
mother was a Lelia or a Cattleya. I fear I must leave the development of 
the new system to its originator, for there are a good many other cases 
where similar difficulties occur. 
Our reformer has not quite finished. He says the botanist is ‘ too often 
obstinate, and will continue to give to mongrels such absurd names, while 
‘we (the italics are mine) continue to make gardening look ridiculous by 
accepting them.” Then another reformer takes up the running, and 
alludes to the inconsistency and cumbrousness of the nomenclature of 
hybrids, ‘‘due to the non-observance of the rules laid down for the 
guidance of the committees and of raisers in general.” . . . “ The 
‘Orchid Committee,” he says, “‘ sets a bad example, and does not do what it 
‘might do in regularising and reducing to system the erratic nomenclature 
of which complaint is justly made.” Now this begins to look promising. 
“* Instances,” he says, “fare so numerous and so notorious that it is not 
necessary. to cite many of them.” So he cites one only, namely Odonto- 
-glossum Smith#i. And he says.that “the unsuspecting botanist would 
naturally take a plant named Odontoglossum Smithii to be a distinct 
‘species, and . . . he might waste much time in the futile attempt to 
‘ascertain what O. Smithii was, where it came from, and where it was 
described. But if it had been called John Smith, all this time and trouble 
would be saved.” Would it really? Would it have told him one of the 
three things mentioned? I doubt it. But if it had been called O. x 
Smithii (with the sign x), in accordance with the rules to which he had 
just alluded, and in accord with the Vienna Rules (see page 358 of your last 
- volume) he would at least have known that it was a hybrid. Then he says 
*“it would be easy to act on the rule which exists already, which forbids the 
application of a specific name in Latin to a plant of garden origin.” Let 
him read the Vienna Rules again, and perhaps he will discover his mistake. 
But I have already dealt with this question at page 34, and indicated the 
