November, 1912.] 
THE ORCHID WORLD. 
33 
A SUGGESTED NOMENCLATURE. 
THE ever increasing number of Cypri- 
pedium hybrids is bewildering. The 
days of primary hybrids have almost 
passed, at least so far as the creation of new 
ones is concerned, and unless we occasionally 
obtain some new species with which to make 
a fresh series the future will entirely depend 
on the success obtained by the continual 
crossing and selecting of the finest flowers 
that we now possess. The rediscovery of 
Cypripedium Fairrieanum gave us a plentiful 
supply of new material to work with, and 
primary and more complicated hybrids of this 
species have recently made their appearance 
in large numbers. But the acquisition of such 
a distinct and beautiful species is not of every 
day occurrence, probably we may never dis- 
cover another of equal merit, or one likely, in 
any way, to greatly influence our present 
exhibition type of Cypripedium. 
Many will argue that we have already 
reached the " florist's flower " type of bloom, 
or, in other words, the parental characteristics 
have become so altered and unrecognisable 
that all parentage may be discarded, and 
only fancy names should be given to any 
particular hybrid considered ^vorthy of dis- 
tinction, even as many different names as 
there are distinct varieties from the same 
seed pod. 
In many ways this method would be simple 
and useful to the amateur who only purchases 
his plants for the adornment of his green- 
house or for the sake of making a small 
increase in his income by the sale of duplicate 
plants. But there are others, more scientifi- 
cally inclined, who wish to keep correct 
records of the parentage, not only for the 
additional interest which such matters always 
impart to the individual flower, but in order 
that reproduction of the hybrid may be 
effected, should circumstances so require. 
Again, by what means can we tell whether 
two Cypripediums that both possess identical 
names are one and the same thing. In the 
majority of cases they are, but if amateurs 
are left to christen their plants with the most 
popular names of present day vocabulary, and 
without consulting one another or some 
recognised horticultural society, how are we to 
proceed with any definite knowledge of the 
subject. 
If all hybrids had been duly registered, and 
a correct list from time to time published, 
leading societies could have checked one 
another and the whole system kept in order. 
Such, however, has not been the case, but 
instead we often find societies, amateurs, and 
trade growers each upholding different names 
for hybrids possessing exactly similar 
parentage. 
The methods of Nature and the ideals of 
man are often vastly different. Hybridists 
have crossed species having certain desired 
colours that have not appeared in the result- 
ing seedlings : they have attempted to unite 
certain specific characteristics of three or more 
flowers with more or less disappointing 
results : they have endeavoured to perpetuate 
other ideal qualities without success. The 
only really satisfactory conclusion to be 
derived from all these difticulties is that 
Nature must, and does, have her own way in 
the settlement of all these perplexing 
problems. Is it not then advisable to follow 
more closely her method of developing the 
Cypripedium by amending our system oi 
nomenclature to a style more in accordance 
with her doctrine of evolution ? 
Let us take an example from the genus by 
selecting three well-known species : insigne, 
villosum, and Spicerianum. Unite the two 
first and we have a primary hybrid known as 
nitens ; the first and third will give us 
Leeanum ; and the second and third will 
make Lathamianum. The production of a 
hybrid containing, theoretically, these three 
species may be carried out by uniting nitens 
with Spicerianum, resulting in a hybrid known 
as aureum ; by connecting Leeanum with 
villosum, which gives us Leeander ; and by 
crossing Lathamianum with insigne, making 
dellense. The following plan will simplify 
the parentage : — 
VOL. ni. 
5 
