CCXXxiv PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



be caused by various means, of which no doubt the " big-bud " mite is 

 the chief. The twig-cutting weevil (Eliynchites coeruleus) may also 

 cut a whole shoot across whilst soft and growing. When this is done 

 the side buds at once send fortli weak branches instead of developing 

 into fruit buds, and these are the so-called reverted " branches. The 

 fruit which may appear on these secondary shoots will naturally be 

 small and weak, as there has not been time to mature fruit-buds such 

 as w^ould have been produced naturally on the strong main branches. 

 If the bud damage is caused by mite, its spread to neighbouring trees 

 is easily undersuood. It is unfortunate that the term "reversion," 

 with its implication of throwing back to a remote or wild " ancestor, 

 has been used, as it begs the question entirely. The idea of a single 

 bud variation is well known, but I doubt if a case of a whole tree 

 *" reverting " in one jump has ever been known to occur. I suggest 

 that w^hat has happened is that the normal course of pruning and bud 

 development having been upset the fruit suffers in size. If this is so, 

 it would follow that entire removal of old branches and the resultant 

 forcing up of young growth from below would overcome the " rever- 

 sion," and the tree would, in the absence of a recurrence of the cause, 

 produce fruit once again of a normal size. It will be interesting to 

 know if any of your readers has tried this remedy, which, if it proved 

 successful, would offer a conclusive proof of the truth or falsity of the 

 above suggested explanation. 



Scientific Committee, October 8, 1912. 



Mr. E. Hooper Pearson, F.R.H.S., in the Chair, and eight members 



present. 



Bulhophyllum Gentilii. — Mr. O'Brien, V.M.H., showed, on behalf 

 of Sir Fred. Moore, a specimen of Bulbophyllum Gentilii Eolfe (see 

 Orchid Review, October 1912, p. 314). This species has the nectar 

 glands placed on the upper side of the dorsal sepal. It has been con- 

 founded with B. Calamaria {Bot. Mag. 4088), and the two species are 

 mixed in herbaria. 



Mentha viridis var. — Mr. Fraser, F.L.S., showed a specimen of 

 the Mentha described by Sir John Smith under the above name, occur- 

 ring wild about Booking and Maidstone. 



Nomenclature of Orchid hybrid. — The Committee considered the 

 question of the nomenclature of a hybrid Orchid referred to it by the 

 E.H.S. Council. The alleged parentage was C. x Fahia alha {C. 

 lahiata x C. Dowiana aurea) x C. Warscewiczii var. * Frau Melanie 

 Beyrodt, ' and the name suggested for the seedling was C. x Harrisiana. 

 The Committee considered that this name transgressed the recommenda- 

 tions of the Vienna Botanical Congress regarding plant-names in thnt 

 it was too much like existing names in the same genus, thereby tend- 

 ing to confusion {e.g. Cattleya Harrisoniana, C. x Harrisii, and C. 

 Ha-rrisae); the name was therefore not tenable. Further, they thought 



