In the October number of the Gardeners' Monthly, Mrs. R. B. Edson has an article under the heading of " Summer Notes." The writer does not find fault with the article, but especially commends that portion of it referring to duplicate names, to the careful attention of such as grow plants for sale. There can be no justifiable apology for the frequent examples of such mistakes.(?) After I had flowered the really fine Canna Iridi-flora, Ehemanni, under the two parts of the name, I wrote a firm of florists that I thought would be likely to know, and inquired if the two were not one and the same. By due course of mail the following answer was received, "Ehemanni is Iridi-flora, or, correctly, Irtdiflora is Ehemanni." The writer seems to claim, without stating it, that Ehemanni was the original name. Now, recalling the custom of many growers in Europe to follow the name of the plant by their own, to designate that they are the originators, I have ventured to "guess" that the originator of this superb Canna bears the name Ehemann, and that he named it Iridiflora. When it was catalogued by the grower or some one else, it was under the form of the name that first appears in this card above.

If my supposed explanation of the two names for the same Canna is not correct, will some one of the readers of your valuable journal, who knows the original name and by whom the plant was originated, set me right ? When I am in pursuit of information, I am quite willing to have the error involved in a "guess" pointed out.

Note. - If my explanation is correct, or is shown to be wrong, who will pay back to innocent buyers what they have invested in duplicate plants ?

Washington Heights, III.

[Florists in good standing cannot be too particular about accuracy in the names of plants. Nothing hurts the reputation more than mistakes in this particular. With the best intentions, however, mistakes cannot always be helped, nor can the injury be helped that is sure to follow to the one who makes it. - Ed. G. M.]