SEPTEMBER, IQII.| THE ORCHID REVIEW. 263 
the flowers having rose-purple sepals and petals, becoming pallid at the 
base, and a three-lobed lip, deep purple in front and whitish below. 
In 1853 it was figured in the Botanical Magazine (t. 4700), under the 
same name, and is said to have been received from Messrs. Backhouse, 
York Nursery, as a new species of Cattleya, from St. Catherine’s, Brazil. 
Sir William Hooker remarked that he adopted Morren’s name “ without 
subscribing to the opinion that it is a truly distinct species.” He then 
went on to speak of another plant sent by Messrs. Backhouse under the 
name of “a new Cattleya,” also from the island of St. Catherine’s, Brazil, 
the Lelia purpurata, Lindl., ‘‘ which, though much resembling a Cattleya, 
must not be confounded with the present species.” 
In 1853 Lindley himself dealt with the plant (Gard. Chron., 1853, p.- 
582), remarking: ‘‘ This brilliant and very rare species has just flowered 
with Mrs. Lawrence,” and after describing its characters he added: ‘‘ This 
is reported to be a native of St. Catherine’s, in Brazil, whence also came 
the still more beautiful Lelia purpurata. We must add that this also isa 
Lelia, if the mere number of pollen masses shall 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.” 
Soon afterwards it was figured in Pescatorea (t. 23), and in 1855 
Reichenbach adopted Lindley’s view that the plant was a Lelia, calling it 
L. elegans (Allg. Gartenz., 1855, p. 242), but without adding anything 
further to its history. 
In 1877, when describing the artificial hybrid Lelia Sedenii (Cattleya 
superba X Lelia devoniensis), Reichenbach suggested that Laelia elegans 
was a natural hybrid. Commenting on Lelia devoniensis (one parent of 
L. Sedenii) he remarked that it was “‘ very much like L. elegans; I would 
even regard it the same, if it was not said to descend from Lelia crispa 
and Cattleya guttata, when there is—at least of our actual knowledge—at 
the natal place of elegans no L. crispa to be seen, and no Cattleya 
guttata, but the next cousins, L, purpurata and Cattleya guttata 
Leopoldii”’ (Gard. Chron., 1877, ii. p. 424). This is the earliest suggestion | 
I know of that the plant might be a natural hybrid. 
In 1889 I transferred the plant to Leliocattleya, under the name of 
L.-c. elegans, on the ground that it was a natural hybrid between the two 
genera (Gard. Chron., 1889, i. p. 619; ii. p. 155), at the same time separating 
the white forms, then classed under the name of L. elegans alba, but clearly 
‘derived from L. purpurata and C. intermedia, under the name of L.-c. 
Schilleriana. The correctness of the latter view was proved in 1898, when 
Messrs. Charlesworth & Co. flowered seedlings which they had raised 
artificially from L. purpurata ? and C. intermedia g (O.R., vil. p. 168). 
