4 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
some shape or form is essential, how is it to be given to such a plant, seeing 
that nearly all its roots are in the air? Clearly it must be either in the 
water supplied or in the air, and yet we have no evidence of the former. 
The fact that the roots are in the air implies that they obtain their food 
there, and depend upon it there is some connection between aerial roots 
and aerial manures. As to manure water, Mr. Hamilton remarks :—‘‘ I 
have proved again and again that one handful of guano in a 150-gallon 
tank improves Dendrobes, Cattleyas, Lelias, Coelogynes, and—who would 
think it ?—Odontoglossums even.” And why not ? 
That Cattleya x Imperator question (page 365) affords some interesting 
food for reflection. ‘It has hitherto only been named in the vernacular,” 
Mr. Rolfe observes, “‘and the name now proposed conserves the orignal 
idea as nearly as possible, consistent with the requirements of botanical 
nomenclature.’ It was originally named Cattleya x Le Czar, but we on 
this side the water, of course, promptly changed it to Cattleya x The 
Czar. I suppose the Germans when they come to deal with it will dub it 
Cattleya x Der Czar, and the Russians—surely they have an interest in 
it—must also be allowed to use the vernacular, even if ‘‘ Czar’ must be 
changed into “Tsar.” And when we have had enough of this sort of 
thing, somebody will ask again—‘ Shall we ever have a universal language ?”’ 
It would appear that the vernacular is not in accordance with the 
requirements of botanical nomenclature, and, therefore, that the law of 
priority does not apply. At least this is all I can make of it at present, 
but I shall watch future developments with interest. 
The foregoing opens up another interesting little question. Some years 
ago the Royal Horticultural Society were so dissatisfied with the methods 
of naming plants then in vogue that they appointed a Nomenclature 
Committee, who, after mature deliberation, made certain recommendations, 
which were adopted by the Society and printed amongst its reports. One 
of these rules was that hybrids between distinct species should be named in 
Latin, and there was a further recommendation that their names should 
conform to the laws of botanical nomenclature. It is notorious that these 
recommendations have been ignored, and the result in the case of the 
hybrids between Cypripedium barbatum and bellatulum I have alluded to 
on more than one occasion, claiming that the proper name of this hybrid 
is C. X Richmanii. The moral is obvious. 
: ARGUS, 
