Lindenii with eight pollinia (actually a side view of a 
single pair of pollinia is illustrated showing their unequal 
size and shape). The plant illustrated was apparently the 
one which was later described by Lemaire as Cattleyopsis 
delicatula. 
Several puzzling questions come to mind in regard to 
the Richard plate. Why, if this plate was incorrect, did 
Lindley fail to call attention to its inaccuracies? Why 
did he refer Laelia Lindenii to Laeliopsis if Richard’s 
interpretation of this concept were correct? Since Rich- 
ard’s plate was published in 1850, three years before 
Lindley proposed the genus Laeliopsis, it seems probable 
that he must have seen the plate. It is barely possible 
that Lindley had examined plants of both species (Cat- 
tleyopsis Lindenti and Laeliopsis domingensis), thinking 
they were the same, and was somewhat confused in his 
own mind concerning the actual number of pollinia in 
Laelia Lindenn. 
The fact remains that Lindley wrongly referred the 
Cuban plant with eight pollinia (Laelia Lindenit) to Lae- 
liopsis (four pollinia) after implying that it was the same 
as Cattleya domingensis. The latter species (Laeliopsis 
domingensis) apparently does not occur in Cuba. 
In conclusion, it seems best to recognize three genera 
in this group of allied plants. They may be separated on 
technical characters as follows: 
Flowers with a long sepaline tube adnate to the ovary; leaves coria- 
ceous, with the margins entire; pollinia 4 
1. Broughtonia 
Flowers without a sepaline tube; leaves fleshy-thickened, rigid, with 
the margins serrate; pollinia 4 or 8 
Pollinia 8, in equal pairs 
2. Cattleyopsis 
Pollinia 4, equal 
3. Laeliopsis 
[ 43 ] 
