JuLy,. 1911.] THE ORCHID REVIEW. 217 
Album (iii. t. 135), froma plant in the collection of W. E. Brymer, Esq., 
Ilsington House, Dorchester, where it is said to be the Cattleya Roths- 
echildiana of some gardens. Shortly afterwards Reichenbach suggested 
Lelia Boothiana as the second parent, as appears from the following. On 
-August 21, 1883, Mr. J. Day made a painting (Orch. Dvaw., Xxxviil. t. I1), 
which he records as ‘‘ Drawn at Mr. Wm. Bull’s, being a plant of his own 
importing from Brazil.” He also remarks that Mr. Bull thought it different 
from Lelia amanda, and has sent a flower to the Professor. The reply is 
recorded as follows: ‘‘ Your Lelia is my amanda. I have had several sent 
me lately. It varies much. I consider it a natural hybrid between Lelia 
Boothiana and Cattleya intermedia. Sept. 2, 1883.” | 
_. We now come to Cattleya Rothschildiana. On December 5, 1882, a 
plant was figured by Mr. Day under this name (Orch. Draw., xxxii. t. 19), 
whose origin is thus recorded: “‘ Mr. Stuart Low, of Clapton, very kindly 
sent me a lovely box of flowers received by him from Mr. Brymer, of 
Dorchester, among which was this very lovely Cattleya. It appears to me 
to be a hybrid, whether natural or garden-raised I cannot say. It seems 
intermediate between L. elegans and Cattleya maxima. If so, it must be 
a garden plant, since one comes from Brazil and the other from New 
Grenada.” Mr. Day afterwards added the name “‘ Lelia amanda,” remark- 
ing: “‘ This, Lelia amanda, an imported Orchid from Brazil. The plant was 
sold to Mr. Brymer by Mr. W. Bull, who flowered two more plants in 1883, 
- one of which is drawn in Sc. Bk. xxxviii. 11. See remarks there. Cattleya 
maxima does not grow within a thousand miles of Lelia elegans, so cannot 
be the parents, if this is a hybrid—but Prof. Reichenbach suggests Cattleya 
intermedia and Lelia Boothiana, which seems very likely, as the latter 
would give the veining. Sept. 8, 1883.” 
This painting and note are very interesting and instructive, for they 
afford a clue to the identity of Cattleya Rothschildiana, of which I am 
unable to find a description, and also show the confusion that has been 
introduced into the history of Lzliocattleya amanda. This painting does 
not represent the plant of the Orchid Album, nor yet the one painted after- 
‘wards by Mr. Day (previously alluded to). Nor is it the one described 
by Reichenbach (whose description appeared just eleven days after the 
painting in question’ was made). It represents what I afterwards described 
as a natural hybrid between Lzlia Boothiana and Cattleya Forbesii, under 
the name of Leliocattleya Verelii (O.R., vil. p. 340), which itself had been 
purchased as L.-c. amanda. This is well shown by the closely infolded side 
lobes of the lip, and by the yellow disc with the very characteristic 
Forbesii-like red veining (for Mr. Day, fortunately, made an analysis). 
Whether Reichenbach ever saw this second hybrid is uncertain, for he 
does not allude to it,.but the two probably came in the same importation, 
