252 THE ORCHID REVIEW. [Nov.-Dec., 1918. 
differs from C. ensifolium in its shorter and narrower, gracefully recurved 
leaves, and in the more elongated and acuminate sepals and petals. The 
plant exhibited bore two spikes of five flowers each. The sepals and petals 
are light green, the former narrowly lanceolate, acuminate, 14 in. long 
and the latter over 1 in. long, and with a few purple lines and dots at the 
base. The lip is oblong, three-lobed, nearly 1 in. long, the colour light 
yellowish green, with some dark purple marginal markings on the side lobes, 
and a longitudinal channel on the disc. The appearance of the species in 
cultivation is interesting, for hitherto we have only known it by the old 
figure and the more recent description. Three forms are figured in the 
work quoted, and in a recent republication by Makino they have been 
named as follows: t. 4, C. Kanran; t. 5, var. virescens, with a more acute 
front lobe to the lip; and t. 6, var. latifolia, with broader leaves. These 
are only known to us by the figures. We may add that there are several 
other interesting rarities figured in the work, of which dried specimens from 
some of our Japanese correspondents would bewelcome. __R. A. ROLFE. 
atteN CATT ELEG = 
Is) a LAELIO LEYA ANS. AP 2 > 
SOMEWHAT comprehensive history of Leliocattleya elegans has just 
A -appeared. Originally described, we are told, as a species of Cattleya, 
in 1848—regarded as a doubtful species in some gardens and placed under 
Lelia, and further complicated by the inclusion of another plant that was 
imported with it—its hybrid origia not suggested till 1877, and not 
authoritatively recorded until many years later, finally left until 1911 to 
have its origin proved experimentally. References are given, and we turned 
them. up. The suspicion of its being a natural hybrid is due to a somewhat 
similar plant having been raised artificially, though not from parents grow- 
ing in the same locality ; while the authoritative record is briefly as follows: 
“Cattleya elegans, Morr. = Leliocattleya elegans.” But the story was not 
so given originally, and it affords an illustration of what may happen when 
a brief summary of recorded facts is thus inverted into the negative. And 
how much is omitted! The history of such a plant might well be treated 
graphically, somewhat as follows :— 
GRAPHIC HISTORIES.—I. 
1848.—Cattleya elegans described and figured as a species by Morren, 
from a plant which flowered in the establishment of M. Ambrose Verschaf- 
felt, Ghent, and which had been sent from Santa Catherina by Francois de 
Vos in the previous year.—Amn. de Gand., iv. p. 93, t. 185. 
1853.—On a plant flowering with Mrs. Lawrence, Ealing Park, Lindley 
remarked that it was “‘a Lelia, if the mere number of pollen masses shall 
