JUNE, 1909.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. : 189 
Mrs., as is done in all important indexes and library catalogues, to the great 
convenience and saving of time and temper of all those who have to use 
them. 
‘‘Nomenclature is a thorny subject, and fuli of pitfalls,’ observes 
“Argus” (O.R. xvii., p. 68). Nowhere is the truth of this remark better 
exemplified than in the paragraph whence this quotation is taken, for had he 
pursued the subject of Cypripedium x Curtmanii one step further he would 
have discovered that the other parent, C. X Beeckmanii, is also only a form 
of an older hybrid, z.e., C. X Berkeleyanum, and the parentage, on the 
principle of the Orchid Stud- Book, would therefore be formulated as follows : 
Berkeleyanum X Schlesingerianum. The interesting question now arises: | 
Is the name Curtmanii valid or must it be altered ? 
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and when 
“ Argus’”’ (ante, p. 103) writes about the Orchid Committee of the R.H.S. 
neglecting or forgetting the rules drawn up by a Nomenclature Committee 
years ago, one naturally wonders that the authors of the Orchid Stud-Book allow 
anomalies to appear in print inthe Orchid Review such as: 1, Odontoglossum 
x Hellenus (xX harvengtense X crispum) (ante, p. 85), and O. X Helenus 
(harvengtense x Coradinei) (p. 116), and 2, Cypripedium x Iris magnificum 
(Chamberlainianum X Maudiz) (ante, p. 84), while the Orchid Stud-Book 
(p. 169) gives Paphiopedilum ciliolare and P. X Sementa as the parents of 
P. x Iris. The excuse which may be advanced, that similar discrepancies 
are unavoidable in hurried reports of meetings, does not apply to such an 
oversight as that in the continuation of the Orchid Stud-Book (ante, p- 106), 
where Leliocattleya xX Electra is given as the result of a cross between 
Cattleya Trianze and Lelia x Latona, whereas a reference to the Orchid 
Stud-Book (p. 112) shows that the offspring of Cattleya Percivaliana and 
Lelia purpurata has already received that name. 
If the present rate of increase of Orchid hybrids be maintained, a new 
edition of the Stud-Book will be required before five years have passed, and 
if so it is to be hoped there will be no necessity for supplements, as the 
constant turning from the body of the book to the two _ respective 
supplements and vice versa is somewhat trying. It is alsoto be hoped that 
in the new edition the authors will see fit to add the dates to the list of 
works cited after the Introduction on pages xlvil. and xlviii. | 
G. K. GUDE. 
(We thank Mr. Gude for his appreciative remarks, and hope that he will 
succeed in his praiseworthy attempt to keep his copy up-to-date. We have 
a few remarks to make in reply, and will take the points seriatim. 
The omission of the generic names from the top of the page in Part II. 
and its supplement was the result of accident. Instructions were given to 
