» THE ORCHID REVIEW. [JANUARY, 1909. 
(in the alphabetical series) is given in heavy type in the centre of the 
column, and all the species with which it has been crossed are arranged 
alphabetically on the left, with the resulting hybrid on the right. Each 
parent appears again in its own alphabetical position, and thus the hybrids 
of any given species appear all together. . . . Having found the 
name of the hybrid by means of its parents, one turns to Part II., where its 
history and other details are given. Part I. serves the double purpose of 
indicating the name of any given hybrid whose parents are known, and of — 
shewing with what others a given species has been crossed.” 
Part II. contains (1) an alphabetical enumeration of existing hybrids, 
each under its adopted name, followed by (2) the names of its parents, 
(3) references to descriptions and figures, (4) thé name of the raiser or 
exhibitor, (5) date of first flowering, and (6) synonymy, these being followed 
in a few cases by (7) a short additional note. A few explanatory details 
are given under these several headings. 
1. NaMES.—In all cases we have aimed at adopting the earliest 
correct name, but this is not invariably the name first published. Part II. 
commences with a few suggestions for securing greater uniformity of 
practice than at present exists, and the following paragraph may be repeated, 
as it has been our guide throughout :— 
‘ Hybrids raised between species should receive specific names, Latin or 
classical, consisting of a single word—the use, however, of two short words 
being permissible where they can be connected with a hyphen. Short 
names should be used for preference, those exceeding six syllables being 
considered inadmissible.’ ” 
Some examples of the names adopted are then given. 
‘2, PARENTS.—The names of the parents are given in their alphabeticyl 
sequence, and in most cases where the seed parent is definitely recorded 
the sign ? follows the name. But in many cases the record is not clear, 
and where doubt exists the sign has been omitted. Raisers might help to 
fill up some of these blanks, and to correct any that are known to be 
erroneous.” 
References and figures may be left to explain themselves, but of the 
latter it is remarked : ‘‘ Except in cases where they are unduly numerous, an 
attempt has been made to give acomplete list of published figures, (avoiding, 
however, mere repetitions in the same work).” 
The next point that we note is that of Synonymy, under which we 
find: ‘This has proved an unusually difficult subject. A glance 
at page 97 will show that the well-known hybrid between Cattleya Mossiz 
and Lelia purpurata (Leliocattleya x Canhamiana) has been recorded 
under nineteen distinct names, While Bepbicpedium Xx aureum has 5 ae 
