and decurrent sepals.’’ Both genera have four pollinia. 
Later in the same year (1853), Lemaire proposed the 
genus Cattleyopsis based on C.delicatula (‘*. . . originaire 
des Grandes Antilles (de Cuba ou de St. Domingne?’’) ). 
He separated Cattleyopsis (eight pollinia) from Brought- 
onia and Laelopsis primarily on the number of pollinia, 
the last two genera characterized by having species with 
only four pollinia. He did not compare Cattleyopsis with 
Laela, However, it is separated from that genus prima- 
rily in that the pollinia are divided into four pairs, each 
pair having pollinia of unequal size and shape, whereas 
the pollinia in Laelia are all of equal size and proportion. 
Lemaire made the mistake of showing all of the eight 
pollinia of C. delicatula as being of the same size and shape. 
He stated that the flowers of this plant were similar to 
those of Laelopsis domingensis. Actually they simulate 
those of that species so perfectly that unless one examines 
the pollinia it is almost impossible for one to separate 
them. This is especially true of dried specimens. 
It is difficult to understand why Lindley placed Laelia 
Lindeni in the genus Laeliopsis. It is true that in de- 
scribing this species, he wrote, ‘‘This is probably the 
same as Cattleya ? domingensis.’’ He failed, however, to 
state the number of pollinia. Nevertheless, he originally 
placed it in a genus whose species have eight pollinia 
(Laelia), but at the same time he implied that it was pos- 
sibly referable to a species in a genus whose components 
have four pollinia (Cattleya). Since he finally included 
Laeha Lindeni in Laeliopsis (which has four pollinia) we 
may assume that he believed this concept actually to have 
had four pollinia. However, it has been included in Cat- 
tleyopsis (which has eight pollinia) in all later publications, 
based doubtless on the plate in A. Richard (in Sagra Hist. 
Cub. Segunda parte, Hist. Nat. 11 (Fl. Cub. Fanerog. 2) 
(1850) 243, t. 82) where a plant was illustrated as Laelia 
[ 42 ] 
