338 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
same. A similar remark applies to Lindley’s ‘“ Uropedium” and 
Reichenbach’s “‘ Selenipedium”’ which Pfitzer changed to Uropedilum and 
Selenipedilum, though at that time it was known that the former was not a 
good genus. 
The case of ‘‘ Paphiopedilum ” is a little different, but the advantage of 
uniformity in spelling is obvious, and considering the liberties taken with 
pre-existing names I am not disposed to quarrel with those who choose to 
drop the “‘1.”” Besides which, the name originally included two genera, 
for Pfitzer remarked ‘‘ Unter diesem Namen fasse ich, wie an anderen stelle 
naher begriindet werden soll die Selenipedia acaulia coriifolia Reichenbachs 
(Xenia Orchidacea 1, s.3) zusammen, . . .’—that is, the American plants 
now referred to Phragmipedium—but immediately afterwards he added 
P. insigne and P. Spicerianum, and a few pages later P. barbatum and 
P. venustum, from the Old World. And subsequently, he added two 
Catasetums and a Cyrtopera. Paphiopedilum, as a genus, is thus a little 
mixed. Count Kerchove afterwards adopted the arrangement, but changed 
the name to Paphiopedium ; and finally Rolfe, after excluding the spurious 
species, showed that two distinct genera were included under the name, for 
the larger of which he retained the name Paphiopedium, using Phragmi- 
pedium for the other. I wonder what will be the next development. It 
would appear that we have four distinct and well-defined genera in the 
Cypripedium group (supra, iv., p. 330), and I suppose we must adopt the 
new names, but it is unfortunate that our botanists did not make the 
discovery sooner. But let us have uniformity of spelling, at all events, and do 
spare us from this useless tampering with the construction of familiar names. 
A good example of how not to do it appears in the Gardeners’ Chronicle 
for January 22nd, where I find ‘‘ Lelia Amesiana, Crawshay’s variety ”’ 
(p. 59, fig. 22). It is said to differ from the “original ” in certain points 
which are specified. On turning to the original L. Amesiana I find it to 
be a hybrid between Lelia crispa and Cattleya maxima, now known as 
Lelio-cattleya x Amesiana, and the figure certainly does differ very 
considerably. There is also a reference to page 47 of a previous issue, 
but on looking that up I find the plant recorded as “ Lelia anceps 
Amesiana, Crawshay’s variety.” Now what is the correct name of this 
plant? Clearly L. Amesiana is incorrect, and if it is L. anceps var. 
Amesiana there is no need for the additional name. If, on the other 
hand, it is different, the word Amesiana should be omitted, for either it 
is that variety or it is not. Last month you wrote ‘“ the nomenclature 
of varieties is in a state of hopeless confusion” (p. 9). Is it any wonder ? 
ARGUS. 
