THE ORCHID REVIEW. 297 
purity of colour, and the absence of any rosy flush in the flower, the only 
colour being the light yellow disk; but now that so many plants are in 
cultivation it is doubtful whether so sharp a line can be drawn between 
them. Albinos of this Cattleya appear to be rather more common than 
of some others of the labiata group. 
> 
) 
y 
DIES ORCHIDIANZ. 
On more than one occasion I have called attention to confusions in 
nomenclature. The other day picking up my Lindenia I observed a 
Cypripedium x Gibeziananum, a hybrid between C. venustum and C. 
villosum, which I have long known under another name. Several other 
instances could be pointed where the same hybrid has received two or more 
different names, and I think it is quite time some effort was made to check 
this unnecessary multiplication of names. A varietal name could easily be 
added to indicate any difference from the original type, but in several recent 
instances where new names have been imposed even this addition would 
have been unnecessary, the plants possessing no appreciable difference trom 
older hybrids. 
The question is—Where are we going? Among the thousands of 
seedlings I see everywhere a large number are from identical crosses, and 
unless great care is taken the confusion will become ten times worse than it 
is already, and even now it is bad enough. I hope the ORCHID REVIEW will 
exert its influence in checking this unnecessary increase of synonyms. 
A discussion has recently taken place as to whether Cattleya Triane or 
Trianei is the correct spelling, both methods finding advocates. The 
question seems to me an exceedingly simple one, as the word Triana requires 
no change of termination in latinising. The nominative singular is Triana, 
and the ‘a’ must be changed into “ze” in the genitive—thus Triana’s 
Cattleya becomes Cattleya Triane. Strangely enough one writer on the 
question says, ‘‘ Not all the customs of the English can make Trianzi 
correct.” But why saddle the English with the error? It was Reichenbach 
who originated it, though there are some who still follow the error. By the 
way, the ORcHID REvIEw has never adopted the erroneous method. 
And now I am on the subject I may mention that there is one mistake 
which some of our Continental friends almost invariably make, and that is, 
in uniformly using a single ‘fi” in the genitive, whether the nominative 
ends in “us” or “ius.” It is correct for all names which are latinised by 
