102 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [APRIL, 1909. 
their significance.’ He thinks (Gard. Chron., 1909, 1. p. 171) that ‘each 
generic name has a single syllable or dissyllable which could be adopted as 
its symbol, and be used in such a way that there would hardly be more 
syllables than genera.” He suggests shortening— 
Angulocaste to Angcaste. 
Ancectomaria », Hemecta or Aneria. 
Dossinimaria », Dossaria. 
Macomaria »» Macaria or Macria. 
Chondropetalum ,, Chonalum. 
Zygobatemannia ,, Zygannia or Batalum. 
Zygocolax » Zygolax. 
Zygonisia », Aganalum or Zygisia. 
Odontioda », Cochlossum or Odontoda. 
Odontonia », Miltossum or as hitherto. 
In the case of the two trigeneric hybrids he suggests shortening— 
Brassocattlelia to Brassattlia. 
Sophroleliocattleya ,, Sophrattlia. 
These, he thinks, could be read off instanter, and quite as readily as the 
longer form. 
By a little ingenuity he thinks that even eight genera could be combined, 
and by way of test he gives an example of uniting the first eight genera in 
the list, as follows :— 
** Chondoszygangochemagalum.” 
But whatever does it mean? If he thinks that any Orchidist, expert 
or otherwise, can read it off or tell its meaning “‘ instanter,” without looking 
at the list, he must be very sanguine. True, he admits that it is ‘‘ bad 
enough,” but he considers it ‘‘ only about half as long as the seven generic 
names combined in the circular as an example of unwieldiness.”” Here’s a 
paragon of moderation! I think that the authors of that circular have 
something to answer for. 
I fail to see the improvement in the amended list, either on the score of 
euphony or lucidity. It is true that some of the names are a little shorter, 
but brevity can be purchased too dearly, and the system that can change 
Odontioda and Odontonia into Cochlossum and Miltossum, and call it “a 
step in the right direction,” is suggestive of a step backward. It is a 
delightfully free and easy system, too, considering that it provides an 
alternative rendering in six out of the ten examples given. | 
Are the recommendations of the Nomenclature Sub-Committee to be 
regarded as merely pious opinions, or as something to be carried into 
