298 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
the addition of ‘‘ us,” which becomes “i” in the genitive ; but it is equally 
incorrect for those ending in “ius,” which in the genitive is changed to 
“ii.” Thus Low is latinised Lowius, which becomes Lowiiin the genitive, 
yet the Belgians habitually spell the word Lowi, which is just as incorrect 
as Skinnerii would be for a word which is latinised by the addition of “ us.’’ 
I have no intention of writing a disquisition on Latin, but now that the 
question has turned up it is just as well to allude to it, because there seems 
to be much uncertainty in the matter. 
The Royal Horticultural Society have a rule which sets forth that 
“Exhibitors showing, for the first time, a plant under a Latin name, should 
be required to furnish the name of the botanist who has described the plant.” 
And another to the effect that, “‘ The Orchid Committee should decline to 
recognise any unauthorised name.” The other day I see that they gave an 
Award of Merit to a plant under the name of Bletia Watsoni, and a con- 
temporary records it as a “‘ Nov. sp.” Your report, however, calls it Bletia 
catenulata, which was described a century ago, and if so, I want to know 
who is the botanist that described this old plant under a new name ?—and I 
am assured that it is actually the original species of the genus. The only 
definite record I can find is the one mentioned above, though I am not sure 
if the obvious conclusion is a safe one. Some time previously I observed 
Vanda Reeblingiana recorded as a “‘ Nov. sp.,” also without the name of the 
botanist who described it, though from the report of other contemporaries 
it is evident that Messrs. Low furnished the information. ‘This time, how- 
ever, they fail to throw any light on the subject. Perhaps the rule is 
widely honoured—in the breach. 
Some time ago I had occasion to call attention to a magnified figure of a 
flower of Odontoglossum crispum apiatum which appeared in the Gardeners’ 
Chronicle, and now another occurs under the name of O.c. mirabile. The 
flower is represented as four inches in diameter across the petals, which 
themselves are one and an eighth inches broad. Now this is the very O. x 
Coradinei mirabile of which a description appears at p. 198 of these pages, 
whence I learn that the flower measures three inches across the petals, which 
organs are two-thirds of an inch broad. Whereis the need for this exaggera- 
tion? I suppose the block will soon reappear elsewhere, for already I see 
two reproductions of the misleading figure of O. c. apiatum, and in one case 
side by side with correct figures of other varieties, which look dwarfed and 
insignificant in comparison. Of course there is no word of explanation to 
Put people on their guard, and I think it is time to protest against this sort 
2 of th ing, as exaggerated and misleading figures of Orchids are becoming far 
: nec. cs : ARGUS. 
