— 
Tae ge EAA at aia Aen 
Nov.-Dec., 1918 ] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 253 
definitely separate the genera Cattleya and Lelia. The pollen masses, 
although eight, are not, however, of equal size in this species, but four are 
quite small, and lodged in very shallow sockets in front of the anther.” — 
Gard. Chron., 1853, p. 582. 
1855.—The name changed to Lelia elegans by Reichenbach.—Allg. 
Gartenz, 1855, p. 242. 
1862.—The genus Lelia reduced to Bletia by Reichenbach, hence the 
name again altered to Bletia elegans.—Walp. Aun., vi. p. 427. 
1877.—Its hybrid origin suggested, Reichenbach remarking: “It is 
much to be wished that Mr. Seden may soon raise magnificent hybrids by 
crossing Lelia purpurata and Cattleya guttata Leopoldii, the more so as 
within my knowledge the demand for Lelia elegans is far greater than can 
be supplied by English growers.” The occasion was the flowering of 
Lelia Sedenii, raised from Cattleya superba x Lelia devoniensis, the latter 
parent being “‘very like L. elegans”; he would regard it as the same, but 
for the fact that at the natal place of L. elegans only L. purpurata and 
C. guttata Leopoldii were to be found.—Gard. Chron., 1877, ii. p. 424. 
1880.—-Lzelia elegans var. alba figured (it had appeared two years 
previously) from the collection of Sir Trevor Lawrence, Bart., Burford, 
when F. W. Burbidge remarked : ‘‘ Although Lzlia elegans is an imported 
plant, it is nevertheless now generally accepted that it is a natural hybrid 
between Cattleya guttata, probably the variety Leopoldii, and some Lelia.” 
—Garden, xvii. p. 132, t. 218. 
1887.—Lzelia Schilleriana, Rchb. f., L. Stelzneriana, Rchb, f., L. gigan- 
tea, Warn., and L. Turneri, Warn., reduced to L. elegans, of which it was 
temarked that its extremely variable character had given rise to the 
hypothesis of its being a natural hybrid, Lelia purpurata and Cattleya 
intermedia being chiefly concerned in the parentage, with the more remote 
participation of C. guttata in some of the forms. Of these it was clearly 
. Suggested that some approached C. intermedia and others C. guttata var. 
Leopoldii.—Veitch. Man. Orch., ii. pp. 66-69. 
1889.—The plant called Lzliocattleya elegans by Rolfe, who pointed 
out that two distinct hybrids had been confused under Lelia elegans, the 
Original, with numerous varieties, ‘‘there was every reason to believe”’ 
came from C. guttata var. Leopoldii and L. purpurata, ‘‘ while a few others 
were as clearly derived from C. intermedia and L. purpurata.” These 
were enumerated under Lzliocattleya Schilleriana, ‘‘ for it seemed undesir- 
able that hybrids of different parentage should be included under the same 
name, and Lelia Schilleriana, which appeared in 1855, seems to be the 
earliest name applied to this hybrid.”—Gard. Chron., 1889, il. p. 79. 
1892.—Differences again pointed out when Leliocattleya elegans var. 
bl enheimensis was figured, and “‘doubts having been expressed on the 
