The nomenclature question is again to the front. Quite recently we 
were gravely informed that all our Dendrobiums must be called Callista, 
our Angrecums Angorchis, and our Calanthes Alismorchis; not to mention 
a number of other equally trifling changes. And now comes a suggestion 
from a new and unexpected quarter. Generic hybrids furnish the theme. 
56 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
Dean Herbert held the view that generic hybrids were impossible, their 
so-called occurrence being presumptive evidence that botanists had been 
mistaken with regard to the genera in question. This view is held up to 
admiration by Mr. W. Watson, in a recent number of Garden and Forest. 
“No one,” he writes, ‘‘acquainted with Lelias and Cattleyas woul 
object to their being united to form one genus, and Sophronitis might, with 
equal reason, be included with them. . . . Phaius and Calanthe are very 
near allies, if we compare such species as Phaius veratrifolius with Calanthe 
Masuca, etc., the botanist’s opinion notwithstanding.” ) 
“It would simplify matters,” he proceeds, “if botanists would look upon 
the crossing of two plants as conclusive proof of their. generic relationship. 
. . . The whole system of classification is admittedly arbitrary, and tht 
division of plants into genera is often only a temporary arrangement, tobe 
reconsidered when more is known,” 
Information, however, is coming to hand. Lzelia has been crossed with” 
Cattleya, Cattleya with Sophronitis, and Sophronitis with Epidendrum 
We have also natural hybrids connecting Cattleya with Brassavola and 
Epidendrum, and an artificial one connecting Epidendrum with Laelia, an 
therefore these must all be united to form a single genus. 
We are not told which name to adopt, nor yet how we are to distinguist 
this vast and polymorphous genus from Schomburgkia, Broughtonia, Tetra 
micra, and other allies, which have not been connected by hybridisation 
or whether these also must be included. But this is a mere detail, ant 
will doubtless be explained in a future paper. | 
The case with regard to Phaius and Calanthe is particularly ually 
tunate. Botanists have been rash enough to place the two in differ I 
groups, and to suggest that they are more closely allied to certain othe 
genera than they are to each other. Certainly they possess well-mat" 
Structural differences. But we now learn that all this is as nothing 
pared with the weighty fact that the two have been successfully hybridis® 
together. 
By the way, a Phaius known in cultivation might have been selecté 
ae illustration, especially as P. grandifolius is identical in structure” 
P. veratrifolius, and is, moreover, the particular species which called 
