THE ORCHID REVIEW. 229 
CATTLEYA x INTRICATA. 
A RECENT note respecting the parentage of Cattleya X intricata maculata 
(O’Brien in Gard. Chron., 1900, xxviii., p. 41) has induced me to refer back 
to the history of the plant, with the result of showing that it ought to have 
been included among natural hybrids of proved parentage (Journ. Roy. 
Hort. Soc., xxiv. p. 192), and it may be interesting ncw to clear up the 
matter. The note in question refers to a plant identified as C. X intricata 
maculata, which has flowered in the collection of Joseph Broome, Esq., 
Sunny Hill, Llandudno, among other imported Brazilian Orchids, and to 
which Mr. J. O’Brien, in identifying it with C. x intermedia maculata, 
alludes as a ‘‘natural hybrid between C. amethystoglossa and C. intermedia. 
It is a larger flower than C. intermedia, and seems to well bear out the 
supposition of its parentage. The sepals and petals are of a delicate rose 
or blush-pink, with a slight yellowish cast on the sepals, and a number of 
purple markings within the margins. The front of the lip is bright amethyst- 
purple, the basal part white, tinged with rose.” 
C. X intricata was originally described in 1884 by Reichenbach as a 
‘‘n. hyd. nat.?”” He remarked :—‘‘ Ah, those dreadful ‘uniques’! They 
are the pride of collectors, the despair of poor botanists who have to name 
them. The habit of this most recent riddle is that of Cattleya intermedia, 
as I am informed by its actual excellent possessor. The flower makes one 
think of those of C. intermedia, the narrow sepals and petals being lightest 
white-rose, the lip is that of Lzlia elegans picta, only that the sharp-angled, 
long side laciniz are white, the free blade of the mid laciniz, with abrupt 
stalk, of the deepest warm purple. Column light rosy, pollen of a Cattleya. 
The plant has puzzled Mr. S. Low himself, whose eyes are so much accus- 
tomed to judge bulbs of our pets. After a long, vexing meditation I cannot 
‘but endorse Mr. S. Low’s view that it has the strains of Cattleya intermedia 
and Lelia elegans. I expect the future possessor of this rarissima avis will 
have less anxiety than either Mr. S. Low or I have endured with it.”— 
Gard. Chron., 1884, xxii., p. 12. 
It subsequently appeared that there were two plants, which passed into 
the collection of H. Little, Esq., of Twickenham, and in consequence of a 
query of mine, when compiling the list of Garden Orchids, ‘“ May it not be 
a form of C. intermedia ? ” this gentleman sent to Kew an inflorescence and 
pseudobulb, which convinced me that it was a “natural hybrid between 
C. intermedia and one of the forms of guttata—possibly the variety 
Leopoldi.”—Gard. Chron., 1889, vi., pp. 38, 70. 
The following year C. x intricata maculata was described by me as a 
plant which had just flowered in the collection of Malcolm Cooke, Esq., 
of Kingston Hill, differing from the original form in having the sepals and 
