et ee ee ee Se ee ee 
signe aaa eas 
- Marcu, 1909.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 67 
The Sub-Committee consider that the suggestion No. 5, with the former 
ending, best fits the case, and are ‘‘ prepared to recommend to the Council 
that it be adopted as the method of coining names for multigeneric hybrids, 
unless some more desirable method can be suggested.” They add :— 
‘‘ The commemorative name chosen should be that of someone eminent 
as a student or as a grower of Orchids, and the conventional termination 
“ara’ should be used. 
‘It is not proposed that this suggestion should interfere with the use 
of names already in existence, or with the coining of names by combining 
parts of the names of the parent genera when two genera only are crossed. 
‘“The sub-Committee further think it desirable that the combinations 
‘such as Epidendrum X Sophronitis already in existence should be written 
without a hyphen, as Epiphronitis (see list). 
‘““They further suggest that if the specific name attached to a hybrid 
‘were of the Latin form, varietal names would be easier of addition, so that 
such forms as Leeliocattleya ‘ Phoebe’ illustrissima might in the future be 
avoided.”’ 
The Sub-Committee gives reasons for not favouring the other sugges- 
tions. Names formed under No. 4 they think “would lack distinctive- 
ness,” and those under No. 6, ‘‘ while distinctive, the constant repetition 
-of the syllable ‘ hyb’ would be likely to lead to confusion, and would be the 
reverse of euphonious. Those formed under the second suggestion, it is 
thought, ‘‘ would not be euphonious or sufficiently distinct,” while of No. 
3 it is remarked, ‘“‘ The names thus formed would seldom be euphonious, 
and the method of formation would not always prove sufficiently simple to 
grasp.’ But it is against suggestion No. 1 that the most fatal objection is 
urged. ‘‘ This method will lead to the formation of such unwieldy names, 
as Dialaeliocattphronitis and 
R Se is 
L: 1 1 pf Tae roe ” 
~ 7 i z 
I really had to give a separate line to that last word, and I don’t mind 
confessing that I cut it out of the report for fear of getting it wrong. I 
do hope the printer will be careful with it. 
I am glad to find that the Sub-Committee declines to interfere ‘“ with 
the use of names already in existence,” because “‘ Lysoc”’ is scarcely an 
improvement on Sophrocatlelia, but why, oh why does the Nomenclature 
Sub-Committee spell it Sophrolzliocattleya ? 
And why object to Lzliocattleya Phoebe? Ifa name must be found to 
put in the pillory, why not something like Cattleya x William Harris 
fulgens or Lelia x Miss Murray E. Ashton? Plants bearing very similar 
