NATURAL HYBRIDS OF THE CATTLEYA GROUP. 223 
in it the presence of a natural hybrid,’’ he added, ‘“ We think it a plant 
the history of which requires further confirmation.’ All the flowers 
mentioned above are carefully preserved on the same sheet in Lindley’s 
Herbarium, and Lindley has added a pencil note to the three sent by 
Mr. Skinner: “ H. awrantiacum is ¢ and not B. Skinneri.” When this 
note was added is uncertain, but in 1861 further evidence appeared. 
On March 26 of that year Messrs. Veitch exhibited a plant at a meeting 
of the Royal Horticultural Society under the name of Cattleya x quate- 
malensis. It is said to have been “an imported plant introduced by 
Mr. Skinner, who is of opinion that it is a natural cross between 
C. Skinneri and E’pidendrum aurantiacum, specimens of both of which 
were sent along with it’ (“Gard. Chron.” 1861, p. 291). Shortly 
afterwards it was figured (“ FI. Mag.” 1861, t. 61), and proved quite 
distinct from C. Skinnert parviflora. This view of the origin of 
C. x guatemalensis is now fully accepted, but it is, of course, conjectural 
which was the seed parent. A few other examples have since appeared 
among the parent species. CU. Skinneri var. parviflora, however, is quite 
different. 
Meantime other cases had appeared. In 1859 Reichenbach described 
Lelia x irrorata, from the collection of Consul Schiller, of Hamburg 
(“Hamb. Gartenz.” xv. p. 57), and after pointing out its affinity with 
his earlier Lelia Schilleriana, and some resemblances to Cattleya 
intermedia, we find the additional remark, “ Bastard? ’’ showing that the 
author suspected it to be of hybrid origin. A year later, he added 
Lelia x euspatha from’ materials sent by Dr. Casper, of Berlin, and 
M. Liiddemann, of Paris (J.c. xvi. p. 420), remarking, “I doubt not 
that this Lelia is a bastard.’”’ He then pointed out the resemblance to 
Lelia elegans in the pollen, and suggested that the novelty might have 
been derived from Lelia Boothiana or L. purpurata and Cattleya 
intermedia or some other species. In 1861 Reichenbach added _ his 
Lelia x Stelzneriana, previously described as a species, to the list, 
remarking : “This is perhaps a hybrid?” (FI. des Serres,” t. 1494). 
These remarks are significant, and it may be added that all the three 
just mentioned are now considered to be forms of Reichenbach’s Lelia 
Schilleriana, described in 1855 as a species, but now considered to be 
a natural hybrid between Lelia purpwrata and Cattleya intermedia, 
and consequently bearing the name of Lelio-Cattleya x Schilleriana 
(Rolfe in “Gard. Chron.’ 1889, ii. p. 155). The hypothesis has since 
been proved, Messrs. Charlesworth having raised it artificially from these 
two species (“ Orch. Rey.’’ 1898, p. 168), and the experiment has been 
repeated in two other collections. 
After a rather long interval, in 1877, another curious intermediate 
form appeared, in the collection of J. W. Wilson, Esq., of Liverpool, and 
was described by Reichenbach under the name of Cattleya x Wilsoniana, 
“n. sp. (n. hyb.?).” The author remarked that it was gathered in 
company with the old C. bicolor, and “ there is not much doubt left that 
it ought to be regarded as a natural hybrid between this and perhaps 
C. intermedia, Grah.”’ (“ Gard. Chron.” 1877, ii. p. 72). I have not seen 
it, but on account of its dark purple colour I have a sueploigg that the 
second parent may have been C. Harrisoniana. 
