APRIL, 1909. | THE ORCHID REVIEW. 103 
practice ? At the R.H.S. meeting held on March 9th the Orchid Committee 
(so it is reported) gave an Award of Merit to ‘ Brasso-Lzlio-Cattleya 
Cooksonii.” But in that famous circular, the ink on which had hardly had 
time to get dry, we were recommended to write ‘‘ Brassocattlelia” (it 
should have been Brassocatlelia), and ‘‘ without a hyphen.” Is history 
going to repeat itself, or is there some mistake in the report? (After the 
above was in type came the report that at the next meeting a First-class 
Certificate was given ‘to Sophro-Lelio-Cattleya Xx Olive. And yet 
“‘ Sophrocatlelia ” isthe proper form of the generic name, dating from 1900 
(O.R., vili. p. 354). Perhaps the official report will put things straight). 
The worst of setting up a standard of nomenclature and then not acting 
up to it is that things quickly get into a tangle, and then, when everbody 
begins to cry out about it, and somebody attempts to set it right, he 
generally gets a good wigging for his pains. Years ago the R.H.S. 
appointed a Nomenclature Committee, who after long consideration drew 
up a set of rules, and said the Orchid Committ ee should decline’to recognise 
any name not in conformity with the said rules. But the rules were some- 
times neglected or forgotten, and now that the authors of the Orchid Stud- 
Book have attempted to put some of the names right, the Gardeners’ Chronicle 
remarks ‘such alterations will cause no small amount of unnecessary 
confusion.” They cite the change of Cattleya x Lady Ingram into C. x 
Ingramiz, and of Brassocattleya x Digbyano-Mossiz into B.-c. X Veitchii 
(with various others), as examples of the alterations that cause unnecessary 
confusion. But the former change is in accordance with the R.H.S. 
tules—and the Orchid Committee should have refused to recognise the 
other name when they gave an Award of Merit to the plant—and the 
latter change was made on the advice of the Chronicle itself. The hybrid 
originally appeared under the name of Lelia X Digbyana-Mossiz, and 
when it became Leliocattleya x Digbyano-Mossiz the Chronicle remarked : 
*‘ The generic name is felicitous, but we hope some means may be taken to 
render the specific name less cumbrous.” Very good advice, too, and it was 
taken when the plant became Brassocattleya x Veitchii (Q.R., x. p. 83), but 
note the result ! 
They also cite an article from the Vienna rules that ‘No one is 
authorised to reject, change or modify a name,” &c., but overlook the fact 
that it only applies to names which come under the binomial system—and 
even those rules permit the correction of an error. The Chronicle, however, 
concludes by saying ‘‘ The Stud-Book makes a definite step toward the 
evolution of order out of chaos,” and that would not have been possible by 
leaving things just as they were. ARGUS. 
a 
