225 
When Lindley originally described Laelia caulescens he remarked: 
“In the herbarium of von Martius is a similar plant from the same 
locality, with a three-flowered raceme and much shorter leaves; 
apparently it is a mere variety.” Reichenbach referred this plant 
doubtfully to his Bletia rupestris (Xen. Orch. ii. p. 59), which is a 
synonym of Laelia rupestris, Lindl., and in a note under Bletia 
caulescens (p 60) he specially alludes to a specimen of it at Munich, 
on which Lindley had written “ Laelia caulescentis var.? an specie: 
diversa?” This specimen he has definitely labelled “ Bletia 
rupestris, Rebb. fil.,” but it is certainly not Laelia rupestris, Lindl., 
which is a taller, more robust plant, with larger flowers. The same 
specimen Prof. Cogniaux has referred to Laelia longipes, Reichb. f., 
and I believe correctly, for it has the dwarf habit and floral stract- 
ure of that species, while Martius has definitely recorded the colour 
of the flowers as “ purpureo-violaceis.” The original of Laelia 
longipes, Reichb. f. (Bletia longipes, Reichb. f., Xen. Orch. ii. p, 59), 
me from Brazil (Sellow, 1413) and is preserved at Berlin. 
There is a similar specimen in Lindley’s Herbarium labelled 
“ Laelia caulescens, Lindl., Brasilia, Sellow,’ but without an 
number, the name being written by the distributor, and apparently 
accepted by Lindley as correct. It, however, agrees only with the 
shorter-leaved plant alluded to by him. 
The true Laelia rupestris, Lindl., is a quite distinct species, which 
was collected by Gardner in rocky plains in the Diamond District, 
(Bot. Reg. xxviii. sub. t. 62). It closely resembles Z. flava, Lindl., 
in habit, but has violet-purple flowers. _We have seen that a 
This leaves Laelia caulescens, Lindl., asa distinct species, as it 
was also regarded by Reichenbach, who, however, failed to clear 
up its history. Cogniaux also (Mart. Fl. Bras. iu. pt. v. p. 281, t. 
65, fig. 2) considers L. caulescens, Lindl., to be distmet, and adds 
the localities Sierra de Lapa, Riedel, 99, and S. E. Brazil, Sellow, 
910 ormer I have not seen, but there is an unnumbered 
specimen collected by Sellow, and sent from Berlin to Sir William 
Hooker, which I suspect to be identical with the latter. The one 
other specimen preserved at Kew is Glaziou, 17,271, collected in the 
province of Minas Geraes. Besides the confusion already pointed 
out, there is a note (Xen. Orch. ii. p. 60) that Gardner 5197, 5198 
apparently belonged to Bletia caulescens, which is clearly erroneous. 
It is probable that 5198, 5199 were intended, but the former is 
Laelia flava, Lind}. and the latter L. rupestris, Lindl. Reichenbach 
also added a Bletiz caulescens, var. Liboni« (Reichb. f. Xen. Orch, | 
