100 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
DIES ORCHIDIAN. 
My remarks respecting ‘‘ Lelia Amesiana Crawshay’s variety,” at page 
38, have not passed unchallenged, for Mr. Crawshay writes to say that he 
regrets that the specific name anceps was left out by the G. C. when 
figuring the plant ; still anyone can see that it is a variety of anceps, but as 
to the rest of the name no exception should be taken, for though the plant 
is so much superior to the old Amesiana, it is not distinct enough to be 
called by another name. So that it is Lelia anceps Amesiana Crawshay’s 
variety, whether Argus likes it or not. 
Now both plants have, fortunately, been figured, and on looking the 
figures up I find that the old L. a. Amesiana (Journ. of Hort., 1893, XXvil., 
p- 505, fig. 73) has the deep blackish purple colour confined to the apical 
half of the front lobe of the lip, but in the new Crawshay’s variety 
(G.C., 1898, xxili., p. 59, fig. 22) it extends much further back, and right 
round the apex of the side lobes. If that is not distinction enough what 
shall be said of some of the other named varieties, which are separated 
by much smaller differences ? 
Another objection urged against the name ‘“‘ L. anceps Crawshay’s 
variety” is that it is too much like ‘“‘ L. anceps Crawshayana,” and will 
probably be mistaken for it. This, I think, is extremely likely, though the 
moral which I should learn from the argument is a very different one. 
When it takes five words to indicate a variety it is not rash to predict that 
something will soon be left out ; in fact it was the omission of the specific 
name, and the consequent confusion with a totally different plant, which 
really called forth my remarks. 
Recently I have seen many names of five words like Lelia anceps 
Amesiana Crawshay’s variety, and I may as well say that besides thinking 
them too long, I consider them erroneous. If ‘‘ Amesiana”’ is the name of 
the variety, ‘“‘Crawshay’s variety’? cannot be correct. ‘‘ Crawshay’s sub- 
variety ” would be correct in point of form, but I do not see the necessity 
for such inordinately attenuated names. Varieties must be distinguished, 
that is admitted, but a single varietal name following the specific name 
would be sufficient. Such names as Lelia anceps rosea and L. a. Hilliana 
are short and concise, and answer every practical purpose, which is more 
than can be said of many of the recent developments, some of which I have 
called attention to in previous articles. 
The present notes were crowded out last month, and I have other 
communications on the subject which must stand over for the present. 
| ARGUS. 
