July 15, 1886. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
35 
■ ~- 7 - -- - ■ ■- ■ ... 
15 
th 
Chiswick Show; National Bose Society’s Show, Biimingham. 
17 
s 
18 
Sun 
1th Sunday after Trinity. 
19 
M 
20 
Tu 
Christ’eton Rose Show. 
21 
W 
Newcnni l^-on-Tyne Show (three dayn). 
ORCHID NOMENCLATURE. 
HE Orchid Conference which was held at Liverpool 
recently by the Council and Committee of the 
Royal Horticultural Society terminated rather 
unsatisfactorily, and the special object of the 
meeting—the reformation of Orchid nomencla¬ 
ture—is still unaccomplished. It may, however, 
be hoped that something will result from the 
Pip consideration given to the subject, and that 
further proceedings will he taken in the matter. 
The first point is to decide what the Committee really desire 
to effect, and this did not seem to be clearly understood at 
the meeting in question, as the speakers differed considerably 
in their views, though all agreed that some rules are needed, 
it is evident that the Committee cannot undertake the 
reformation of the whole system of Orchid names, nor would 
it be desirable, for it would only multiply synonyms that are 
already too numerous, and increase confusion. The species 
and varieties that have been correctly described by recog¬ 
nised authorities would be much better left untouched, and 
the reformers might confine their attention to new intro¬ 
ductions and to varieties that have received names from 
horticulturists. 
The next point is, What change is desirable in the present 
system ? and here the difficulties commence. It has been 
proposed to form a dual system of nomenclature, botanical 
and horticultural, confining the former to species and 
varieties distinct enough for the botanist to accept, for which 
scientific names should be employed, and bestowing “ fancy” 
or “ popular ” names on varieties of less consequence, but 
which come within the cognisance of horticulturists. This 
at first sight seems to be a very simple and efficient method 
of escaping the difficulties, but it does not bear a closer 
examination quite so well. What definition will fix the 
respective limits of “botanical” and “horticultural” varieties 
in Orchids, or must the botanist first decide whether he can 
recognise a variety before the horticulturist may deal with 
it ? The characters derived from mere size and colour are 
not valued very highly by botanists, although to horticul¬ 
turists they are of much importance. Is it proposed to restrict 
the “ popular ” names to the varieties differing only in these 
characters, and will those who give the latter titles examine 
the plants sufficiently to determine that there is no “ botanical 
difference?” 
The difficulties attending this suggested alteration are 
numerous, and there is one point that its advocates appear to 
overlook. They regard the varieties of introduced Orchids 
as of the same value as seedling varieties of other plants that 
have originated in gardens, whereas there is considerable 
difference in several respects. We have abundant evidence 
of the variability of Orchids in a natural state by the enor¬ 
mous number of varieties introduced in recent years, especi¬ 
ally of some species. Experiments at home have also shown 
how readily many of them can be crossed, and how much the 
progeny differ amongst themselves. In several cases we 
have seen batches of seedlings from one pod of seed and one 
No. 316.—Vol. XIII., Third Series, 
cross, differing greatly within certain limits, though their 
relationship is clearly perceptible. The vegetative increase 
of Orchids is very slow as compared with many plants that 
advance rapidly by means of spreading roots, bulbils, &c., 
and in consequence a very large proportion of the Orchids 
introduced are probably “individual seedlings,” and years 
(especially with Cattleyas) must elapse before we can count 
a dozen plants in cultivation from one particular variety. 
This is quite different from what occurs with most cultivated 
plants, which can usually be increased by cuttings, layers, or 
grafting, or varieties can sometimes be fixed so that they can 
be obtained true from seed, and in a few years a new variety of 
merit is often represented by thousands of plants. Then the 
value of a name is evident, but it is a serious task to under¬ 
take the naming of individuals only, and if it were encouraged 
we should soon have lists even more overloaded with names 
than they are at present. 
It is already admitted by many orchidists that names are 
too freely given to Orchid varieties, and the Committee would 
be doing valuable service if they directed their attention more 
particularly to this part of the subject. Names are bestowed 
upon varieties in which “ an extra spot can be discovered,” 
because it is said it gives them “ a commercial value,” and 
the most trifling variation is thought sufficient to merit a 
designation. This is the chief evil in Orchid nomenclature 
and ought to be checked. The fact is that much disappoint¬ 
ment has already been caused to many persons by the 
unrestricted indulgence in this practice, and its continuance 
will do more harm to the Orchid interest than some suppose. 
There are of course some well-marked varieties which do not 
vary materially under cultivation, but there are others that 
are by no means constant, and the slighter the variation the 
more likely is this to occur. I have seen forms of several 
different genera, that one year would have been ranked as of 
first-rate quality, and the next season would have been dis¬ 
carded as worthless, solely perhaps from weakness, .and the 
next year recover their usual character, though this does not 
always happen. I have also seen the reverse take place under 
good culture, pseudo-bulbs, leaves, and flowers all showing 
the effects of their treatment. These facts are merely stated 
to show that names given to the minute differences some 
discern are practically worthless, and nurserymen are dis¬ 
covering that they do not advance their own interest by such 
means. 
The object should be to simplify nomenclature as far as 
possible consistently with accuracy, but how the proposed 
dual system of “botanical” and “popular names” will 
effect this in the case of Orchids is by no means clear. The 
species must be named in the usual way, also the so-called 
“botanical” varieties, and what objection can there be to 
completing the system by going one step further, and naming 
the really distinct forms of these in accordance with the 
custom ? Objections have been raised to the repetition of such 
names as “superbum,” “ magnificum,” giganteum,” &c , 
but they are surely more euphonious and more explanatory 
than the majority of popular names. Beyond the third degree 
names are not needed, and if the variety is not distinct 
enough to merit a separate designation, and cannot readily 
be referred to any accepted form already named, it should 
retain the generic and specific name only, as, for example, 
Odontoglossum crispum, and then purchasers would know 
that it was one of a series of individuals agreeing in the 
essential characters with that species, differing slightly from 
others as all individuals do, but not sufficiently to deserve a 
distinct title.—L. 0. 
CULTIVATION OF THE STRAWBERRY. 
(Continued from page 304.) 
SUMMER TREATMENT. 
If planted in spring the hoe should be used freely up to the 
flowering time, for the plants being strong and carefully placed 
out will give some fruit the first year, when a mulching of some 
No. li'72 .—Vol. LXXY., Old S-eries 
