ORCHID CONFERENCE. 



299 



must seek for new species ; and another group in which one or a 

 few species of a genus are so manipulated and selected that an 

 endless variety of so-called species is the result. Among the 

 former class I should include such genera as Dendrobium and 

 Coelogyne. Of these most of the specific names found in garden 

 catalogues really represent more or less distinct species, or at 

 the worst, well-marked varieties. The other section is, perhaps, 

 best represented by the Cattleyas. The number of species 

 belonging to this genus is by no means large. Mr. Bentham, in 

 the " Genera Plantarum," computes them at about twenty species, 

 and I think he is rather over than under the mark. The names, 

 however, in garden books are simply legion, nearly all of which 

 represent mere forms of Cattleya labiata, but which are treated 

 as of equivalent value to genuine species such as C. citrina, C. 

 Forbesii, &c. Some distinction should be made between these 

 forms and the distmct species, and it could easily be done by 

 giving fancy names to the former, and abolishing their classical 

 names. To show the exceedingly inconvenient results of naming 

 these forms in Latin (a language which is not too well provided 

 with suitable adjectives for plants at the best) I may cite the 

 following names from a recent sale catalogue : — Cattleya Moma 

 superba, C. Mendelii superba, C. Triana superba, C. Triance 

 rosea superba, C. Eldorado superba, C. Gaskelliana superba, all 

 of which are varieties of C. labiata, and quite distinct froni the 

 well-known species Cattleya superba. All cultural forms of this 

 nature then should be treated as Auriculas, Roses and Tulips 

 have been for many years, and designated when requisite by 

 fancy names, in any language but a classical one. The chief 

 species to which this applies are Cattleya labiata, Masdevallia 

 Lindeni, Odontoylossum crispum and Pescatorei, Lycaste Skinneri, 

 L'ypripedium insigne and barbatum ; but there are numerous other 

 species, of which two or three cultural forms have received 

 classical names instead of the more suitable fancy names. 



This does not do away with the naming of real varieties, 

 that is with forms of plants which have certain distinguishing 

 characteristics, which remain tolerably constant. 



I take as an example of the kind of revision required the 

 names of varieties of Cuioyyne cristata which I find in a recent 

 garden catalogue. They are: Cozlogyne cristata, C. c, Chats- 

 worth variety ; C. c. hololeuca, C. c. Lemonianct, and C. c. maxima. 



