19 
Wat 
PL. CCCLXVIII. 
LYCASTE MACROBULBON uot. var. YOUNGII noree. 
THE LARGE-BULBED LYCASTE, YOUNG'S VARIETY. 
LYCASTE. Vide Lindenia, Engl. ed., vol. II, p. rz. 
Lycaste macrobulbon. Pseudobulbis magnis ovatis compressis, foliis plurimis oblongis membranaceis nervosis, 
pedunculis radicalibus solitariis unifloris, vaginis distantibus inflatis , sepalis oblongo-ovatis patentibus basi parum 
productis, petalis minoribus latioribus, labello longitudine petalorum oblongo trilobo disco lamella oblonga, lobo 
intermedio oblongo-ovato recurvo crispatulo. 
Lycaste macrobulbon Linpu., in Paxt. Fl. Gard., Il, p. 126. 
Maxillaria macrobulbon Hoox. Bot. Mag., LXXII (1846), t. 4228. 
Var. Youngii. Pseudobulbis minoribus, labello immaculato. 
Var. Youngii RoL¥E supra. 
he yellow-flowered Lycastes form a rather difficult group ; speaking, of 
course, from a botanical standpoint. Two of them, L. aromatica LinbDL., 
and L. cruenta Linp., are fairly well known in gardens, while L. coch- 
leata Linvi., and L. consobrina Reus. F., are also occasionally met with, though 
not always under their correct names, for in several collections I have found the 
last-named one doing duty as L. cochleata LinbL., which is a very rare plant, 
though represented in at least one collection at the present day. Besides these 
may be mentioned L. crinita Linpu., and two or three others scarcely known 
except by description. 
One of these imperfectly known species is L. macrobulbon Linpt., figured 
at t. 4228 of the Botanical Magazine as Maxillaria macrobulbon Hoox., of which 
I have not seen an authentic specimen. It was sent by Purpre from the Sierra 
Nevada, Santa Martha, New Granada, to Kew, nearly half a century ago. It 
flowered in the Kew collection, probably in the spring of 1864, and was figured 
in the Botanical Magazine under the name of Maxillaria macrobulbon Hoox. It is 
compared with Mavillaria aromatica Hoox., and M. cruenta Linp.. (to which 
genus these plants were then referred), but is said to differ from the former by 
the larger size of every part of the plant, the scentless flowers and different 
shape of the lip, and from the latter by its smaller, differently coloured blossoms, 
the very dissimilar labellum, and the absence of the crimson blotch on its 
under side. 
There is a plant in the collection of Joun S. Moss, Esq., Wintershill, 
Bishops Waltham, which may belong to this species. Mr. Moss states that 
Prof. ReicHEnBacu once told the late Mr. B. S. Wituams that he believed it to 
be this, and a flower from the plant agrees fairly well with the figure above cited. 
I have not seen the pseudobulbs, however. 
Ve 
