306 



PEPORT ON THE 



didn't know where they could find the men who could go in at 

 ten o'clock and turn to any page or specimen wanted at the 

 moment to verify a species or variety. He thought the best 

 museum for the Society in that case, and the best library, would 

 be in the heads of the Committee appointed to do the work. 

 They had men in that room who were capable of formiug such 

 a museum, and who had it, in fact, already in their heads ; and 

 the appeal to the man was better than any appeal to an Alexan- 

 drian library. 



The President, having invited further remarks on this, or 

 any kindred subject germane to the main question, 



Mr. Goldring asked Mr. Ridley if he considered that the 

 varieties of Cattleya labiata named Gaskeliana, Pereivaliana 

 and Triana were mere garden varieties. Mr. Eidley seemed 

 to imply in his paper that he considered them so ; but he 

 (Mr. Goldring) did not know where they were to draw the 

 line. He thought they must have a starting point and define 

 the true species, and then name the varieties that had a structural 

 difference — not merely one of colour. He could never believe 

 that very marked sub-species, such as Pereivaliana and Gaskeliana 

 were mere varieties. Mere garden varieties they were not ; they 

 differed structurally. He was afraid that Mr. Ridley had 

 studied dried specimens too much ; and that he would have 

 to go more to the garden. The varieties of Cattleya labiata were 

 very numerous, but it seemed to him that there were about 

 half-a-dozen very marked species or sub-species. With regard 

 to popular names, he thought it would cause just as great a 

 confusion as the popularizing of the names of other plants, 

 which he thought was quite a failure except in well-known 

 names such as the Dandelion. They would have people naming 

 varieties all over the country. With regard to the varieties 

 of Calogyne cristata, he thought Mr. Ridley had studied dried 

 specimens too much. If he would go into the garden he would 

 find structural characteristics. Mr. Ridley, he believed, said 

 that Ccelogyne cristata maxima was merely a garden form, and 

 that a good grower would grow a small one into a large one. 

 He utterly denied that, because they would find that the bulb 

 was different. One had a truncated form, and the other was 

 somewhat globose, and no amount of growing would turn the 

 latter into a truncated bulb. Then, again, the Calogyne cristata 



