262 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
hybrid between them. A plant, apparently identical with the third, is 
now figured froma specimen in the possession of J. Dillwyn Llewellyn, 
Esq., of Penllergaer. In its pseudobulbs and leaves it is little different 
from C. Skinneri, and it has the same short inflorescence enclosed within a 
bivalve spathe; but the flowers are different; not half the size, with an 
acute, not blunt, and emarginate lip, which is whole coloured, not pallid 
over all the lower half. The petals, too, are acute, not obtuse. In other 
respects, that is to say, in the smooth surface of the lip and in the column, 
no difference appears to exist. 
‘Ts it probable that this is a wild hybrid, with the origin suspected by 
Mr. Skinner? We think not. It is true that it appears at first sight to be 
intermediate in the flowers, but there is nothing of a middle nature in the 
pseudobulbs, and its inflorescence is exactly that of C. Skinneri, without 
any tendency to assume the long-drawn form of E, Skinneri. Moreover, 
the lip, though acute, like that organ in the last-named species, is wholly 
destitute of the three lamellae which belong to it. To this may be added, 
that in the petals of the plant before us there is the same tendency to 
become lobed which appears in C. Skinneri. On the other hand the pollen- 
masses appear to be abortive, a circumstance remarked by Mr. Fitch as 
well as ourselves. 
‘* Although, for these reasons, we are unable at present to recognize in 
this instance the presence of a natural hybrid, we think it a plant the 
history of which requires further examination. This is to be especially 
noted, that the origin of the plant which has now flowered, whether or not 
collected by Warscewicz, as is supposed, has nothing in common with the 
specimen discovered in 1854 or 1855 by Mr. Skinner. The two cases appear 
to be wholly independent of each other.” 
The plants mentioned are preserved together on one sheet in Lindley’s 
Herbarium, and confirm Lindley’s remark that the two cases have nothing 
to do with each other; indeed he himself afterwards added in pencil to 
Skinner’s supposed hybrid:—‘‘ Ep. aurantiacum is ¢,not E. Skin.’”’ In short 
this natural hybrid is the rare C. x guatemalensis, but the plant figured is 
evidently the one now under discussion, in a somewhat undeveloped state, 
and Reichenbach afterwards gave the locality as ‘‘ Veragua, Warscewicz.”’ 
Curiously enough, Trinidad is another locality for the plant, Dr. 
Bradford having found it there. In a note with his Herbarium specimen 
he remarks :—‘‘ This plant was common on Naharina, in Trinidad, where 
I found it in fruit in January, 1845, and also in June, 1845. It flowered at — 
St. James’ very abundantly in January, 1846. I doubt, however, if any 
of the blooms produced perfect pollinia, although they produced fruit; 
perhaps, however, the seeds were not perfected. Lockhart told me that a 
native Cattleya existed in Trinidad, which is probably this plant. I only 
