270 THE ORCHID REVIEW. 
it was mentioned by you. There must be some mistake in the matter é 
(Walp. Ann., vi. p. 651). Bateman’s memory, however, may have failed 
him, for in 1866 he wrote:—‘‘It is to be noted that Dr. Lindley never 
drew up any character of this genus. Professor Reichenbach founded his 
genus Bollea upon the plant which Lindley had already described as 
Huntleya violacea; the latter name ought therefore, if possible, to be 
retained. *Dr. Lindley’s second species—H. meleagris—. . . is certainly 
no Huntleya, neither is ita Batemannia, to which genus Reichenbach has 
referred it” (Bot. Mag., sub t. 5598). Now there is a double error here, 
for, as we have already seen, Lindley both drew up a character of the 
genus, and also based it upon this very H. meleagris, which Bateman thought 
to exclude. 
The mistake seems to have arisen from the extension of the original 
genus so as to include the plants now known as Bollea violacea and 
Pescatorea cerina. H. meleagris, Lindl., is therefore the type of the genus, 
and H. sessiliflora must remain a mystery. There is, indeed, in Lindley’s 
Herbarium, a single flower ticketed, “Interior of British Guiana, Mr. 
Schomburgk,” which one might suppose to be the missing plant, though 
not labelled H. sessiliflora, but I think that it must have been received 
afterwards, for Lindley has written on the sheet :—‘‘ Pseudobulbs like 
Huntleya violacea. R. S.”—clearly a memorandum of Schomburgk’s, and 
the latter species was not described until 1839. Lindley also pencilled on 
the sheet, “‘ probably H. meleagris,” and afterwards added the name in ink 
without the implied doubt, so that as the flower is not sessile, I think it 
cannot be the missing plant. In any case, it seems to be specifically 
distinct from H. meleagris, and is a plant to be re-discovered. 
H. meleagris soon appeared in cultivation, for early in the following 
year, Lindley wrote :—“ This rare epiphyte, described very briefly in the 
Botanical Register, under fol. 1991, has blossomed with Messrs. Rollissons. 
The flower was three inches across; the colour pale yellowish white, with 
a brownish purple tint towards the upper part of the sepals and petals. 
The lip was of the same pale colour as the base of the petals. Across the 
bend of the lip is stretched a broad, yellow-fringed crest, which is very 
remarkable.”—Bot. Reg., 1838, Misc., p. 19. 
A year later it was figured (Bot. Reg., 1839, t. 14), when Lindley wee 
—‘‘ This is at present one of the rarest of the epiphytes in cultivation, the 
only specimen I have seen being that now figured, which flowered with 
Messrs. Rollissons, in July, 1838. Its blossoms are much yellower and less 
tessellated with purple than in the Brazilian drawing from which the 
species was first described, and it is not improbable that it will be found to 
vary in this respect. The whole surface of the flowers had quite the 
“appearance of being glazed. This charming plant is found | in 
