22.6 REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE ON GENETICS. 
appeared, and it has also been raised artificially, first in the collection of 
N. C. Cookson, Ksq., Oakwood, Wylam-on-T'yne, from C. Dowiana aurea 
and C. Warscewiczii---of which C. Gigas and C. Sanderiana are both 
forms (‘ Orch. Rey.” 1896, p. 298). (Fig. 51.) 
Cattleya x vesplendens appeared in 1885 (Rchb. f. l.c. 1885, 1. 
p. 692), in the establishment of Messrs. Hugh Low & Co. Reichenbach 
remarked: “Take a Cattleya granulosa and give it flowers of C. Schil- 
leriana, the long sepals being placed as in the first, then you have this 
plant... . Mr. 8. Low and his staff think it a mule between C. granulosa 
and C. Schilleriana, and they may most probably be right.’’ What is 
believed to be identical has since been raised by Messrs. Peeters of Brussels 
from these two species (“ Orch. Rey.” 1900, p. 328). 
Cattleya x Lucieniana (Rechb. f. le. 1885, ii. p. 456) flowered 
with Messrs. Linden, of Brussels, and was said to have the bulbs and 
leaves of Cattleya Harrisoniana and a flower much like that of C. 
Isabella, Rehb. f., but much darker and richer in colour. Reichen- 
bach added: “There can be no doubt its parents are Cattleya Forbesii 
and guttata or granulosa.” I have, unfortunately, not seen it, but what 
is suspected to be the same thing has since appeared, both with C. 
Harrisoniana (“ Orch. Rey.” 1908, p. 282) and C. Schilleriana (l.c. 1906, 
p. 208), and an artificial hybrid between these two species, recently ex- 
hibited by Messrs. Charlesworth, is supposed to represent the same hybrid 
(l.c. 1906, p. 251). 
Cattleya x Scita (Rehb. f. lc. 1885, ii. p. 489) was imported by 
Mr. B. 8. Williams, ‘amidst a mass of C. intermedia,” but the flowers 
were said to be “quite of the shape of the large variety of C. guttata.”’ 
After describing the colour the author remarked: “There can scarcely 
be a doubt about its origin.’”” Some time ago I found a fine painting 
among Mr. Day’s “ Orchid Drawings”’ (xlvii. t. 9), with the remark: “It 
seems to me that it may be a hybrid between C. intermedia and C. 
amethystoglossa,”’ but the latter species has, unfortunately, been confused 
with C. porphyroglossa, Rchb. f., and the figure shows clearly that this 
was the second parent, as I have already pointed out (“ Orch. Rev.” 1903 
p. 254). 
Lelia x porphyritis (Rchb. f. Le. 1886, i. p. 78) is a Brazilian 
plant which appeared in the collection of J. Day, Ksq., of Tottenham. 
Reichenbach remarked that the pollinia led him to suspect it was “a 
hybrid between a Lelia and a Cattleya. The Lelia,” he added, ‘ may be 
pumila, but what is the Cattleya? Mr. Day thinks it may have been 
C. Dormaniana, which may be a mule itself.’’ On referring to Mr. Day’s 
painting (“ Orch. Draw.” xly. t. 27) I find the record: “This plant was 
sent to me from Nova Friburgo, in Brazil, last year, amongst a batch of 
Lelia Dayana... I believe it to be a natural hybrid between Lelia 
Dayana and Lelia Dormaniana.” The latter is a true Cattleya and I 
believe this parentage is correct. The plant is now known as Lelio- 
Cattleya x porphyritis, Rolfe. 
Cattleya x Measwresvi (Rehb. f. l.c. 1886, ii. p. 526) was imported by. 
Messrs. Sander, and flowered in the collection of R. H. Measures, Esq., 
of Streatham. Reichenbach described it as a new natural hybrid, and 
compared it with C. Aclandie, which he thought was one parent, and 
aa 
