29,4 REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE ON GENETICS. 
In 1877 also Lelia x elegans was added to the list. When describing 
the artificial hybrid Lelia x Sedent, Reichenbach remarked: “ The 
Lelia elegans (Cattleya elegans of Morren the elder) has always such 
’ pollinia with straps adherent on each side, and very often two pollinia on 
each strap. The Cattleya x devoniensis (one parent of L. x Sedeni) is 
a very curious product, since it is very much like Lelia x elegans; I 
even would regard it the same, if it was not said to descend from Lelia 
crispa and Cattleya guttata, when there is—at least of our actual know- 
ledge—at the natal place of Lelia x elegans no L. crispa to be seen, 
and no Cattleya guttata, but the next cousins, Lelia purpurata and 
Cattleya guttata Leopoldw”’ ( Gard. Chron.” 1877, ii. p. 424). It is 
now agreed that L. purpurata and C. Leopoldii are the parents, but we 
have not yet heard that seedlings from such a cross have flowered. 
In 1882 there were three additions to the list, the first being Lelia 
x Leeana, which flowered in the collection of W. Lee, Esq., Downside, 
Leatherhead. It was described as a “n. hyb.?”’ (Rehb. f. Jc. 1882, 
i. p. 492), the author comparing it with Lela pwmila, Cattleya 
Harrisoniana, and C. superba. It is now believed to be a natural hybrid 
between L. pumila and C. Loddigesiiwhence also the artificial hybrids 
Cattleya x blesensis and C. x Vedasti have been derived— and hence 
it is now known as Lelio-Cattleya x Leeana (Rolfe in ‘“ Orch. Rey.” 
1901, p. 311). 
Cattleya x Whiter (Rehb. f. lc. 1882, ii. p. 586) was said to have 
been found by Mr. White, a collector for Messrs. Hugh Low & Co., 
growing on a tree in company with C. labiata and C. Schilleriana, which 
were suspected to be the parents. Mr. Boxall afterwards told me that it 
was C. Warnevi and C. Schilleriana with which it was found, and the 
hybrid has since been raised artificially from these two species (see 
“Orch. Rev.” 1899, p. 292). 
Lelia x amanda (Rchb. f. lc. 1882, ii. p. 776) flowered in the 
establishment of Mr. W. Bull, of Chelsea, and was described as “ no doubt 
a hybrid, to judge from the very unequal pollinia,”’ and the author further 
remarked: “ There is no difficulty in thinking of Cattleya intermedia as 
one parent, and the other might be Lelia crispa.”’ Shortly afterwards 
Reichenbach suggested LZ. Boothiana as the second parent, as appears 
from an extract from a letter to Mr. Day, who made a painting of the 
original plant (“ Orch. Draw.” xxxviii. t. 11), after it was sold to W. H. 
Brymer, Esq., of Dorchester. It was also figured in the Orchid Albwm 
(iii. t. 185) from the same source. There are seedlings at Kew from this 
cross which should ultimately settle the point. 
In 1883 two further additions were made, the first being Lelia x 
Crawshayana (Rehb. f. Lc. 1888, i. p. 142), which flowered in the 
collection of de Barri Crawshay, Esq., Rosefield, Sevenoaks. Reichen- 
bach suggested that Lelia albida and L. autwmnalis were the parents, 
but remarked that the possessor preferred to think of ZL. albida and L. 
anceps. The former parentage is now believed to be correct. 
Cattleya x Brymeriana (Rchb. f. lc. 1883 ii. p. 492) was also 
discovered by Mr. White, Messrs. Low’s collector, who compared it to a 
short bulbed Lelia elegans. Reichenbach pointed out its resemblances 
to C. superba and C. Eldorado, and suggested that it might be a hybrid. 
