I have not seen any material of this species. It is ap- 
parently restricted to Cuba from whence it was originally 
collected. 
2. Laeliopsis domingensis Lindley in Lindley & 
Paxton Flow. Gard. 8 (1853) 155, t. 105. 
Cattleya domingensis Lindley Gen. & Sp. Orch. PI. 
(1831) 118. 
Broughtonia hlacina Henfrey in Moore & Ayres Gard. 
Mag. Bot. 8 (1851) 201, t. 
Broughtonia violacea Hort. ex Moore & Ayres Gard. 
Mag. Bot. 8 (1851) 201. 
Bletia domingensis Reichenbach filius in Walp. Ann. 
Bot. 6 (1862) 482. 
Broughtonia domingensis Rolfe in Gard. Chron. ser. 
3, 5 (1889) 491. 
As has been stated above, this species is extremely 
close in habit to Cattleyopsis Lindenu. A minor super- 
ficial character which seems to be more or less constant 
and which helps in separating these two entities is that 
the margin of the lip of 1. domingensis is usually finely 
toothed or fringed, whereas the margin of the lip of 
C. Lindenii is commonly crenate or somewhat coarsely 
toothed. The flowers of this species are usually lilae or 
purplish, with a few yellow veins in the middle of the lip. 
In making the combination, Broughtonia domingensis, 
Rolfe wrote: 
“It has only four pollinia, as Lindley states, though I cannot agree 
with him as to the absence of the spur. On examining living specimens, 
I find this organ almost precisely as in B. sanguinea.”’ 
All of the material of this species which I have exam- 
ined has no evident sepaline tube. The ovary is often 
obliquely swollen, giving the impression of a ‘‘spur’’, 
but there seems to be no extension of the sepals as in B. 
sanguinea. The sepaline tube in B. sanguinea is very 
[ 50 ] 
