300 



REPORT ON THE 



Now of these there is only one ohjectionable one, and that is 

 the last, C. c maxima, for on hunting up the original description 

 I find that its simple characteristics are that it is a little bigger 

 than other forms. Now apart from the fact that the size of the 

 flowers is probably due simply to an extra supply of nourish- 

 ment, and would most likely diminish in the same plant again 

 under unfavourable conditions, the mere size of the flowers is 

 quite insufficient to distinguish one plant from another, unless 

 there is enough difference to be stated in figures. Thus it 

 might be ten inches across instead of three. This plant probably 

 was not worthy of a name at all, but if it was it should have 

 been a fancy name. 



The remaining names speak for themselves. C. cristata 

 hololeuca is distinct as a colour variety in the absence of the 

 yellow patch on the lip. C. c. Lemoniana, again (though the 

 error made by its original namer in imagining that Lemoniana 

 meant lemon-coloured may call up a laugh at his expense), is 

 equally unobjectionable. 



In naming a new variety, therefore, the namer should think 

 first whether he can specify in a few words the cause of distinct- 

 ness in the variety — thus, Ccelogyne cristata alba, lip entirely 

 white. If not, and if the difference is really so slight that words 

 will not clearly convey it, as in many, I might also say most of 

 the innumerable varieties of Cattleya labiata, the name given 

 should be a fancy name. Professor Michael Foster, in a recent 

 article on Iris Cengiali, in the Gardeners' Chronicle, points out 

 that it is not of importance whether a variety of this value first 

 appears in a garden, or in the native haunt of the typical plant ; 

 but where one plant varies so slightly from another as not to 

 deserve a [Latin] varietal name, and yet requires some title, it 

 should bear a fancy name. These slight modifications, in fact, 

 are not strictly varieties at all, but forms, and one can, if 

 requisite, break them up still lower, into sub -forms, so that a 

 species may be divided, if necessary, into sub-species, variety, 

 sub-variety, form and sub-form. As an example, Cattleya 

 labiata is a species, C. labiata Trianw a variety, C. labiata Triaiuc 

 alba, a sub-variety, and anything lower would be a form. Now 

 it seems to me that it would be most advantageous to give all 

 forms of the plant, from sub-varieties downwards, fancy names. 

 It is often suggested that the names of plants should be in 



