SEPTEMBER, 1907.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 259 
But whatever the cause, seedling Odontoglossums are now being raised in 
enormous quantities, and the harvest is becoming increasingly abundant: 
every year. 
Tam afraid this Hybridisation question will shortly involve us is 
further difficulties in nomenclature. The other day I dropped across the 
name “‘ Lelia Purple May,” and wondering what could be its precise 
significance, it gradually dawned upon me that asit was a hybrid between L. 
purpurata and L. majalis, this must be the method of indicating the fact. 
Almost before recovering from the shock I encountered “ Brassolzlia longi- 
ciliare,” a hybrid between Lelia longipes and Epidendrum ciliare. The 
intention was still more obvious, but it recalled a suggestion made some 
years ago that the hybrid between Cattleya Triane and Lelia anceps 
should have been called ‘‘ Lelio-cattleya Triceps,” from its parents, to which 
I objected that the plant was not ‘‘three-headed.” On looking the ntatter 
up I find that it was twelve years ago (O.R. iii. pp. 260, 261), and I then 
remarked ‘‘ whenever such names have a definite meaning of their own, or 
for any other cause are misleading, they ought to be avoided.” The remark 
still holds good, and as the name longiciliare applied to a plant would 
indicate the presence of ciliz# of more than average length, it should not be 
applied to a plant having’no ciliz at all. It seems to be a form of the 
“Jumble name,” alluded to in my last notes (p. 98), which, if sometimes 
admissible, can easily be carried too far. Unless we recognise that some 
names cannot be suitably combined in abbreviated form, we may shortly 
have ‘“ Purple Moss,” ‘‘ Purple Men,” and goodness knows what besides. 
Another difficulty is that pointed out on page 181, which may be 
briefly summarised as ‘“‘too many names,” or distinct names for things 
ostensibly different but really identical. The idea that the same result can 
be obtained by two different roads among secondary hybrids is not new, 
but it might surprise some hybridists if the result of crossing Odontoglossum 
X crispo-Harryanum with O. X ardentissimum proved identical with that 
from crossing O. x Rolfee and O. crispum, yet an analysis of parentage 
shows the composition of the two crosses to be identical. Such a con- 
tingency does not apply to primary hybrids, a fact which emphasises the 
increased difficulty entailed in the nomenclature of secondary hybrids and 
those of more complex parentage. 
Another difficulty is the increasing number of seedlings of unknown or 
€rroneous parentage. So many seedlings are now distributed in various 
ways before they flower, either without record of parentage or with a record 
_ that ultimately proves erroneous, that the question of name becomes 
